Free Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 16.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: January 16, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 296 Words, 2,096 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8551/489.pdf

Download Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) - District Court of Delaware ( 16.8 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR Document 489 Filed 01/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California
Corporation,
Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNET SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., C A NO 04*199 (SLR)
a Delaware corporation, INTERNET
SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Georgia
corporation, and SYMANTEC
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
[ ] ORDER GRANTING RULE S4(b) CERTIFICATION
On October 17, 2006, this Court granted defendants Internet Security Systems,
Inc., a Georgia corporation, Internet Security Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
Symantec Corp.’s (collectively, the "Defendants") motion for summaryjudgment that the
four patents-in-suit in this action are invalid. The grant of summaryjudgment in favor of
the Defendants did not dispose of plaintiff SRI International, Inc.’s ("SRI") claims for
infringement or the Defendants’ counterclaims for declaratoryjudgment of non-
infringement or inequitable conduct.
Sound judicial administration and efficiency will be served by an appellate
consideration of the invalidity issues set forth in the Court's October I7, 2006
Memorandum Opinion granting summaryjudgment. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule
54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court now makes (a) “an express
determination that there is nojust reason for delay," and (b) "an express direction for the
entry ofjudgment" in favor of the Defendants on their counter-claims for declaratory
judgment that the patents-in-suit are invalid. The Court is entering this Rule 54(b)

Case 1:04-cv—O1199—SLR Document 489 Filed O1/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
judgment for the purpose of rendering a final judgment appealable to the Federal Circuit.
See Nystrorn v. Trex C0., Inc., 339 F.3d l347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The Joint Motion For Rule 54(b) Certification ofthe Defendants’ claim for
declaratoryjudgment that the patents-in-suit are invalid is GRANTED.
ITIS so ORDERED thiskgkday mo?.
United States District Judge