Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 128-1 Filed 12/29/20 Page 1 of 5
`Case 1:19-cv-11586—IT Document 128-1 Filed 12/29/20 Page 1 of 5
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 128-1 Filed 12/29/20 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips North America LLC,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06301-AB-KS
`
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION UNDER RULE 54(b) TO
`ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO
`COUNT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,013,007
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Garmin International, Inc.; Garmin
`USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Philips North America LLC (“Plaintiff”) Motion
`Under Rule 54(b) to Enter Final Judgment as to Count I for Infringement of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,013,007 (“Motion,” Dkt. No. 110). Defendants Garmin International,
`Inc. and Garmin Ltd. (“Defendants”) filed an Opposition. (“Opp’n,” Dkt. No. 113).
`Plaintiff filed a Reply. (“Reply,” Dkt. No. 117). The Court deems this matter
`appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacates the hearing scheduled for
`December 18, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; LR 7-15. For the following reasons, the
`Court DENIES the Motion.
`
`//
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 128-1 Filed 12/29/20 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`This Motion arises from Plaintiff’s patent infringement action against Defendants.
`In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe six of Plaintiff’s patents
`within Defendants’ fitness tracking devices and accompanying software applications.
`(Dkt. No. 1). The ’007 Patent was invalidated at claim construction. (“Claim
`Construction Order,” Dkt. No. 102). Plaintiff’s disclaimed the asserted claims of
`the ’958 Patent. (Lamkin Decl., ¶ 4). Plaintiff withdrew its infringement allegations
`as to the ’192 Patent. (Lamkin Decl., ¶ 6). Only the ’233 Patent, the ’377 Patent, and
`the ’542 Patent remain at-issue.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits the Court to enter a separate
`judgment in an action involving multiple claims and multiple parties. Entry of a
`separate judgment under Rule 54(b) is proper where there is: (1) a final judgment;
`and (2) the district court determines that there is no just reason for delay of
`entry. Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1980).
`It is left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the
`appropriate time when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for
`appeal. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 437 (1956). This discretion
`is to be exercised in the interest of sound judicial administration. Id.
`III. DISCUSSION
`Plaintiff moves this Court to enter final judgment on Count I of Philips’s
`Amended Complaint asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,013,007 (“’007
`Patent”). Plaintiff argues that the Claim Construction Order is eligible for
`certification and there is no just reason for delaying an appeal because the ’007 Patent
`cause of action is severable and independent from the other claims.
`
`The Court and parties agree that this Court’s Claim Construction Order is a
`final judgment that can be certified for a Rule 54(b) appeal. (Opp’n, p. 13). Indeed,
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 128-1 Filed 12/29/20 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`the Construction Order is an “ultimate disposition of an individual claim in the course
`of a multiple claims action.” See Wood, 422 F.3d at 880 (concluding that Rule
`54(b) “allows a judgment to be entered if it has the requisite degree of finality as to an
`individual claim in a multiclaim action”).
`Instead, the parties’ dispute centers around the second factor: “whether there is
`any just reason for delay.” Curtiss–Wright, 446 U.S. at 8. “Not all final judgments on
`individual claims should be immediately appealable, even if they are in some sense
`separable from the remaining unresolved claims. The function of the district court
`under . . . Rule [54(b) ] is to act as a ‘dispatcher’.” Id. In making its determination, a
`district court should “consider such factors as whether the claims under review were
`separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the
`claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the
`same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Id. Such factors
`are important in order to “assure that application of [Rule 54(b)] effectively preserves
`the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” Id. (citation and internal
`quotations marks omitted).
`First, Plaintiffs argue that the ’007 Patent cause of action is separable from the
`other patents because they involve different functionalities and inventors. (Reply, p.
`4). While the ’007 Patent may involve its own distinct technologies (it is, after all, its
`own patent), it is, for all practical purposes, intertwined with the remaining patents.
`As noted by this Court in the Claim Construction Order, the patents generally relate to
`monitoring a subject’s activity or health condition. (Dkt. No. 102, p. 2). The patents
`are all utilized across the same allegedly infringing products and involve electronic
`monitoring of athletes—facts that Plaintiffs also recognize as true. (Lamkin Decl.,
`Exhs. B-C; Motion, p. 1). Given the overlap in subject matter, the Court is not
`inclined to separate the claims and risk the Federal Circuit considering the same
`products, subject matter, and issues more than once.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 128-1 Filed 12/29/20 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`Although it is understandable that Plaintiffs would want the Federal Circuit to
`weigh in on its ’007 Patent cause of action sooner rather than later, all practical
`considerations point toward requiring a final and complete resolution of this entire
`case before appeal. The Court finds that allowing the case to proceed on its normal
`track followed by a single appeal will not deprive Plaintiffs of any remedy or result in
`any harsh or unjust judgment. Rather, the Federal Circuit will have an opportunity to
`review the ’007 Patent cause of action —and any other issues that ultimately arise in
`the remainder of this litigation—once the case is completely resolved.
`Ultimately, the Court agrees with Defendant that there is no practical reason to
`sever the expired ’007 Patent for purposes of appeal while simultaneously
`proceeding with litigation relating to overlapping products and subject matter.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for entry of
`
`final judgment.
`
`Dated: December 17, 2020
`
`_______________________________________
`HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`