Masimo Corporation v. Sotera Wireless
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' joint stipulation for a permanent injunction and joint stipulation for dismissal. The court granted the stipulated permanent injunction and dismissed the action with prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Stipulation for Permanent Injunction“Finding the stipulated permanent injunction appropriate, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion for stipulated permanent injunction.” | agree with court The court accepted the parties' stipulation that the Second Amended Complaint states a claim and that the injunction is appropriate. In the context of a stipulated judgment or injunction, the court generally reviews the agreement for fairness and compliance with law. The order recites the necessary findings (jurisdiction, claim validity) to support the entry of the injunction. |
Granting the Stipulated Dismissal with Prejudice“The Court, having considered the Stipulation, and for good cause shown, hereby GRANTS the Stipulated Dismissal. The above-captioned action is hereby dismissed in its entirety, as to all defendants, with prejudice.” | agree with court The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The court construed the stipulation as the requisite joint motion required by local rules and granted it. This is a standard procedural disposition of a voluntary dismissal by stipulation. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to the parties' joint stipulation. It acknowledges the local rule requirement for a joint motion and construes the stipulation accordingly. The findings for the permanent injunction are standard for a stipulated judgment in a patent case, confirming jurisdiction and the existence of a valid claim. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MASIMO CORPORATION, a California Case No. 19-cv-1100-BAS-MSB corporation, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 13 JOINT STIPULATION FOR v. PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND 14 SOTERA WIRELESS, INC., a California JOINT STIPULATION FOR 15 corporation, HON HAI PRECISION DISMISSAL (ECF No. 139) INDUSTRY CO., LTD., a Taiwan 16 corporation, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for stipulated permanent injunction 20 (“Stipulated Permanent Injunction”). (ECF No. 139.) Additionally, the parties jointly 21 stipulate to dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice upon entry of the permanent 22 injunction (“Stipulated Dismissal”). (Id.) 23 I. Joint Stipulation for Permanent Injunction 24 Finding the stipulated permanent injunction appropriate, the Court hereby GRANTS 25 the Joint Motion for stipulated permanent injunction. (Id.) 26 The Court having considered the Second Amended Complaint, the parties’ 27 Stipulated Permanent Injunction, and other materials filed in this action finds that: 28 1 1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this case and jurisdiction over the 2 parties and venue in this district is proper; 3 2. For purposes of this Stipulated Permanent Injunction, the Second Amended 4 Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted; 5 3. This Permanent Injunction can properly be entered in this action; 6 4. This Permanent Injunction does not constitute an admission by Defendants that they 7 engaged in any wrongdoing. 8 9 Accordingly, it is hereby stipulated by the parties and ORDERED that: 10 1. Sotera Wireless, Inc. (“Sotera”) and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (“Hon 11 Hai”), their officers, servants, agents, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active 12 concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Injunction Order 13 (collectively, “Enjoined Parties”), are hereby enjoined from making, using, selling, 14 offering to sell, transferring to others, or importing into the United States any device, 15 system, process, or method, such as the ViSi Mobile device, ViSi Mobile Monitoring 16 System, Legacy Analytics System, or Data Solutions Portal, configured to simulate alarm 17 delay settings for any purpose such as generating reports, analyzing alarm trends, 18 customizing alarm delay settings, troubleshooting alarm limit and alarm delay settings, and 19 testing algorithm updates, whether such use is internal to the company or external for 20 customers. 21 2. The Enjoined Parties are further enjoined from supplying software for use by others 22 that is configured to simulate alarm delay settings for any purpose such as generating 23 reports, analyzing alarm trends, customizing alarm delay settings, troubleshooting alarm 24 limit and alarm delay settings, and testing algorithm updates. 25 3. This injunction shall take effect five (5) business days after the entry of this Order 26 and shall remain in effect until U.S. Patent No. 10,255,994 expires. 27 4. Defendants waive appeal of this permanent injunction. 28 1 5. This document shall be deemed to have been served upon Defendants at the time of 2 execution by the Court. 3 Joint Motion to Dismiss 5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an 6 || absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal 7 ||before a defendant has filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, see Rule 8 1/41(a)(1)(A)G), or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 9 || appeared, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1). See also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 10 Cir. 1997). Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) is effective upon the filing of a 11 |}compliant notice or stipulation. No court order is required. See Stone v. Woodford, CIV- 12 || F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). Nonetheless, the local 13 civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants seek voluntary dismissal by 14 || filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1), such a stipulation must be filed 15 a joint motion.! 16 In the interests of justice and judicial economy, the Court shall construe the parties’ 17 ||Stipulated Dismissal as the requisite joint motion. The Court, having considered the 18 Stipulation, and for good cause shown, hereby GRANTS the Stipulated Dismissal. The 19 ||above-captioned action is hereby dismissed in its entirety, as to all defendants, with 20 || prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 /\ yy 23 || DATED: May 23, 2024 (yitlug (Aaphan 6 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 || ——_—— 28 See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court for the Southern District of California.