|
|
| MOSAID v Red Hat - Settlement and Dismissal ~mw |
 |
|
Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT
|
While we were busy watching the Oracle - Google case play out, we missed the fact that Red Hat, IBM, Adobe, and Juniper Networks all settled with MOSAID, and the infringement claims against those parties have been dismissed (93 [PDF; Text]). The claims against Alcatel-Lucent and VmWare remain pending. (95 [PDF; Text]) Given that the MOSAID patents do not constitute an open issue with respect to open source software, we will not be following the remainder of this case.
Of course, it remains to be seen (or more likely, we will not see) exactly the terms on which Red Hat settled this case, although where Red Hat has settled patent infringement claims in the past it has done so on terms that do not violate the GPL.
*****************
Docket
93 - Filed: 05/07/12 - Stipulation of Dismissal
95 - Filed: 05/17/12 - Letter from Bayard to the Court re settlement and remaining defendants
*****************
93
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC.,
ALCATE-LLUCENT
USA, INC.,
INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINES CORP,
JUNIPER
NETWORKS, INC.,
RED HAT, INC., AND
VMW ARE, INC.
Defendants.
C.A. No.: 11-698-GMS
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff MOSAID
Technologies, Inc. ("MOSAID") and defendant Defendants Adobe Systems, Inc. ("Adobe"),
International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM"), Juniper Networks, Inc. ("Juniper"), and Red
Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat"), pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii), that all claims in this action
against Adobe, IBM, Juniper, and Red Hat be and hereby are dismissed with prejudice. This
Stipulation of Dismissal shall not preclude or limit the assertion of any claims, defenses, or
counterclaims by Adobe, IBM, Juniper, or Red Hat in response to any future assertions or claims
of patent infringement by MOSAID. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and
attorney's fees in connection with the above-captioned action.
BAYARD, P.A.
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Richard D. Kirk (No. 922)
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
[address, telephone, email]
Counsel for Plaintiff MOSAID
Technologies, Inc.
SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM
& MORITZ, LLP
/s/ Collins J Seitz, Jr.
Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (DE No. 2237)
[address, phone, email]
Attorneys for Defendant Juniper Networks,
Inc. and International Business Machines
Corp.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
/s/ Denise S. Kraft
Denise S. Kraft (#2778)
Aleine Porterfield (#5053)
[address, phone, email]
Attorneys for Adobe Systems, Inc.
FISH & RICHARDSON P .C.
/s/ Gregory R. Booker
Tara D. Elliott (#4483)
Gregory R. Booker (#4784)
[address, phone, email]
Attorneys for Red Hat, Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7th day of May, 2012.
/s/ Gregory M. Sleet
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Chief United States District Judge
2
95
[BAYARD letterhead]
May 17, 2012
BY CM/ECF:
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: MOSAID Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Sistems, Inc., et al. C.A. No.: 11-698-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
We represent Plaintiff MOSAID in the above-titled action and I am writing to advise the Court of Plaintiff's settlement and dismissal of four (4) of the six (6) defendants in this case, which moots at least one (1) pending motion on which the Court now does not need to rule.
Specifically, as a result of the dismissal of former Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc., ("Juniper")(D.I. 92-93), Plaintiff contends that the pending motion by Juniper to transfer venue in this case (D.I. 64) is now moot and may be denied as such. Remaining Defendant VMWare, Inc. ("VMWare") concurs with this contention. Remaining Defendant Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. ("Alcatel-Lucent") takes no position as to this contention.
Further, Plaintiff and remaining Defendant VMWare contend that at least one of the two remaining defendants is pursuing all other pending motions and as such those motions are ripe to be ruled on. Remaining Defendant Alcatel-Lucent again takes no position as to this contention.
This letter will also respond to remaining defendant VMWare's recent letter to you regarding the Federal Circuit's recent decision in In re EMC Corp. (D.I. 94). That decision involved eighteen (18) defendants. After the settlement and dismissals, this case now only involves two (2) defendants.
Bayard
May 17, 2012
Page 2
Further, the Federal Circuit highlights the fact that a district court may exercise its "considerable discretion" to consolidate case for discovery and trial under Rule 42, even when joinder is not permitted under Rule 20. In re EMC Corp., Misc. Dkt. No. 100, slip op. at 16. The Court explains that unlike Rule 20, the consolidation provisions of Rule 42 only require that venue be proper and that there be a common question of law or fact. Id. Notably, in the instant action the remaining Defendants have not contested the propriety of venue nor have they contested that there are common questions of law or fact.
We appreciate your consideration of these matters. Thank You.
Sincerely,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman
Cc: Counsel fo VMWare
Counsel for Alcatel-Lucent
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
| :¬) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 06:39 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 07:42 AM EDT |
Please summarize in the Title box error->correction or s/error/correction/ to
make it easy to scan to see what errors have already been noted.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
Please stay off topic in these threads
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How Alan Turing set the rules for computing - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
- Australia Parliament Committee Rejects ACTA - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- Supreme Court upholds the ACA (Obamacare). (N/T) - Authored by: robobright on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- CNN alert: Supreme Court backs Obama’s health care law - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- One more political of interest to GrokLaw: - Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 11:53 AM EDT
- Senate Republicans revamp cybersecurity bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- Why you wait for rulings on paper - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Alan Turing's Birthday comic strip from Unspeakable Vault - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- Dotcom warrants invalid ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
- Carreon v. The Oatmeal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 09:40 PM EDT
- Interesting Analysis of Roberts Court Voting - Authored by: crs17 on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 10:55 PM EDT
- Freedom isn't Free - $85,000 raised on Kickstarter, is that enough for the ‘FreedomBox' ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 12:04 AM EDT
- WeKnowWhatYoureDoing.com - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT
- Easy Money - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 02:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
Please put the title of the News Picks article in the Title box and include a
link to the article in your comment, preferably in HTML Formatted mode for the
convenience of the readers once the article has scrolled off the News Picks
sidebar.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jvillain on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
I am so ashamed that MOSAID is a Canadian company even if it is just a shell
company for American companies. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not! - Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- Not! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 02:54 AM EDT
- Not! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 07:15 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
