In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-01885
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 9
In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation: Judge Gilliam granted Philips and ASUS’s stipulated dismissal, dismissing their claims without prejudice under the settlement’s terms.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. Philips Corporation, Asustek Computer, Inc., and ASUS Computer International. The order dismissed the claims between Philips and ASUS without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
What happened
In In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation, Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation agreed with Asustek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International to settle their claims confidentially and jointly requested dismissal.
The parties’ stipulation dismissed all claims Philips asserted against ASUS and all claims ASUS asserted against Philips without prejudice. Each side agreed to pay its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the motion in its entirety and entered the stipulation as the court’s order. The order dismissed the claims between Philips and ASUS under the stipulation’s terms.
The detailed version
- In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation · No. 4:18-cv-01885
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 29, 2021
Background
Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation sued Asustek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International in a patent-infringement action. The action was initially filed in the District of Delaware, later transferred to the Northern District of California, and consolidated with related actions. The opinion states that Microsoft also intervened in the ASUS action and asserted counterclaims concerning non-infringement, while Philips asserted infringement claims against Microsoft.
Philips and ASUS entered into a confidential settlement agreement resolving the claims between them. They jointly filed a stipulated motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows a court to dismiss claims by court order after an answer or summary-judgment motion has been filed.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal is generally appropriate unless a defendant can show plain legal prejudice. The court found that ASUS, identified as the only remaining defendant in the litigation, joined the motion, so no defendant would suffer prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the stipulated motion in its entirety. The court entered the parties’ stipulation as its order and dismissed all claims asserted by Philips against ASUS and by ASUS against Philips pursuant to the stipulation. The stipulation specifies that those claims were dismissed without prejudice and that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.