"So why should Apple be allowed to re litigate the current already agreed upon items that they signed off on?"
Well......lol..... the stipulations were not litigated...they were negotiations....this comes down to contractual obligations.....we do this, you do that and we are done.
The judge should not allow the defendants to redefine the obligations....especially in the atmosphere they preformed in...under the eyes of the court and approved by the court.
| 09/30/2013 |
51 |
STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT. The Court enters this Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement (a) in favor of Apple on e.Digital's claim for infringement of independent claims 33 and 34 and dependent claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of the '774 patent and any other claims depending therefrom, and (b) in favor of Apple on Apple's Counterclaim Count V for non-infringement of independent claims 33 and 34 and dependent claims 2, 10, 15 and 23 of the 774 patent and any other claims depending therefrom. Apple hereby dismisses without prejudice its Counterclaim Count VI for invalidity of the 774 patent, as well as all other defenses with respect to the 774 patent, and reserves the right to re-assert all counterclaims and defenses relating to the 774 patent should e.Digital or any successor in interest accuse Apple of infringement of the 774 patent at any later point in time. This Stipulated Partial Judgment of Non-Infringement is without prejudice to the Parties rights to appeal the Court's Collateral Estoppel Order and/or any prior or future orders issued by the Court in this matter, and is without prejudice to any claim for attorneys fees and/or costs under any basis, including without limitation Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 54(d), and 35 U.S.C. § 285. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 9/30/2013.(aef) (jrl). (Entered: 10/01/2013) |
The defendants are trying to communicate to the judge he was duped into signing that order....hardening the agreed issues.
doni
