Free Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 have not proven that Reno A&E engaged in inequitable conduct in the p ros ecut ion 27 28 This action came on for trial before the Court and a jury, Honorable David G. Campbell, District Judge, presiding, and the iss ues having been duly tried and the jury having duly rendered its verdict, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. That claims 1-11, 13-15, 17, 21, 24-33, 35-42 and 44 of United v. Reno A&E, Defendant/Counterplaintiff. JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT Eberle Design, Inc., and Electronic Devices, Inc., Plaintiff/Counterdefendants, CIV 02 2575 PHX DGC (Lead) CIV 03 883 PHX DGC (Consolidated) UNITED S TATES DIS TRICT COURT DIS TRICT OF ARIZONA

States Patent No. 6,087,964 are invalid because of the on-sale bar pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); 2. That Plaintiffs Eberle Design, Inc, and Electronic Devices, Inc.

have not proven that any of the claims of United States Patent No. 6,087,964 are invalid for anticipation or obviousness; 3. That Plaintiffs Eberle Design, Inc, and Electronic Devices, Inc.

Case 2:03-cv-00883-DGC

Document 44

Filed 11/01/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case 2:03-cv-00883-DGC Document 44 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 2 of 2 of United States Patent No. 6,087964, and that United States Patent No. 6,087,964 is, therefore, not unenforceable on the basis of inequitable conduct; 4. That Eberle Design Inc. and Electronic Devices, Inc. have not

infringed claim 34 of United States P atent No. 6,087,964 pursuant to the Court's granting of Plaintiff/Counterdefendants' M otion for Judgment as a M atter of Law on that issue; and 5. That Plaintiffs Eberle Design, Inc, and Electronic Devices, Inc.

have and recover their costs of action. Dated this 31st day of October, 2005.