Opinion
5:20-cv-02648-JWH-SPx
12-07-2021
MAXLITE, INC., Plaintiff, v. ATG ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant. ATG ELECTRONICS, INC., Counter Claimant, v. MAXLITE, INC., Counter Defendant.
KELLY M. PURCARO, JORDAN M. ENGELHARDT A.Y. STRAUSS, LLC, MARC L. GODINO GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MAXLITE, INC. WILLIAM J. BROWN, JR., MATTHEW K. WEGNER BROWN WEGNER LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/ COUNTERCLAIMANT, ATG ELECTRONICS, INC
KELLY M. PURCARO, JORDAN M. ENGELHARDT A.Y. STRAUSS, LLC, MARC L. GODINO GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MAXLITE, INC.
WILLIAM J. BROWN, JR., MATTHEW K. WEGNER BROWN WEGNER LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT/ COUNTERCLAIMANT, ATG ELECTRONICS, INC
CONSENT INJUNCTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT
JOHN W. HOLCOMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
WHEREAS, on December 23, 2020, MaxLite, Inc. (“MaxLite”) instituted the instant litigation bearing the above-referenced docket number (the “Litigation”) alleging that ATG Electronics, Inc. (“ATG”), ATG Electronics Limited, and Tianjin CEHL Tech. Co., Ltd., had infringed and were continuing to infringe U.S. Patent No. 10, 612, 757 (“the '757 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10, 473, 309 (“the '309 Patent, ” and together with the '757 Patent, the “Asserted Patents”) by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the ATG Aero® Area Light (the “Aero”) in the United States;
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2021, MaxLite dismissed Defendants ATG Electronics Limited and Tianjin CEHL Tech Co., Ltd. from the Litigation without prejudice [ECF No. 23];
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2021, ATG filed an Answer to the Complaint with counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity [ECF No. 24];
WHEREAS MaxLite and ATG (the “Parties”) have set forth the terms of their settlement of this Litigation in a confidential Settlement Agreement and have further agreed to abide by the terms of this Consent Injunction; and
WHEREAS the Parties do not acknowledge or admit liability on the part of either Party for any claim, counterclaim, or defense asserted in this Litigation, and the Parties do not acknowledge or admit the determination or finding of any fact, whatsoever; and
WHEREAS the Parties agree that this Consent Injunction shall not be deemed to be an interpretation or construction of any claim or term of the Asserted Patents and further agree that this Consent Injunction is an agreement between the Parties as a matter of compromise in lieu of litigating patent issues;
MaxLite and ATG hereby agree as follows:
1. For purposes of this Consent Injunction, the term “Aero” includes all models, versions, iterations, or variations, of ATG's LED lighting product (under any catalog number, product number, part number, or other designation) ever offered for sale and/or sold under the trade name Aero.
2. During the time that one or both of the Asserted Patents is in effect, ATG, its parent companies, its affiliated companies, its related companies, and/or anyone acting at the direction of or in concert with ATG (the “ATG enjoined parties”) are permanently enjoined from making, using, offering to sell, or selling the Aero within the United States, importing the Aero into the United States, or actively inducing another to make, use, offer for sale, or sell the Aero within the United States or import the Aero into the United States.
3. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Litigation for the purpose of enforcing this Consent Injunction and the terms of the Parties' Settlement Agreement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.