From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

E-Tool Dev., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
May 14, 2018
No. 3:17-CV-00720-PK (D. Or. May. 14, 2018)

Opinion

No. 3:17-CV-00720-PK

05-14-2018

E-TOOL DEVELOPMENT, INC., and E-TOOL PATENT HOLDINGS, CORP., Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants v. MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC, Defendant/Counter Claimant


ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [44] on January 11, 2018, in which he recommends that this Court grant Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [25]. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. Pls.' Obj., ECF 50. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Plaintiffs' objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court clarifies, however, that this decision only invalidates the specific claims of the Patent at issue in this case. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that validity defenses are "claim specific"); Tannerite Sports, LLC v. Jerent Enterprises, LLC, 6:15-CV-180-AA, 2015 WL 5829816, at *4 (D. Or. Oct. 6, 2015) (same). I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation [44] granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [25]. Plaintiff's claims of patent infringement are dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant's counterclaim for declaratory judgment that its EE-Sim Tool does not infringe upon the Patent is dismissed as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 14 day of May, 2018.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

E-Tool Dev., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
May 14, 2018
No. 3:17-CV-00720-PK (D. Or. May. 14, 2018)
Case details for

E-Tool Dev., Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:E-TOOL DEVELOPMENT, INC., and E-TOOL PATENT HOLDINGS, CORP.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: May 14, 2018

Citations

No. 3:17-CV-00720-PK (D. Or. May. 14, 2018)

Citing Cases

Westhoff Vertriebsges MBH v. Berg

If Defendants' counterclaims of infringement counterclaims fall, Westhoff's mirror-image declaratory judgment…