United States Gypsum Co. v. Pacific Award Metals, Inc.

Full title: UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC AWARD METALS, INC.…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Jul 3, 2006

No. C 04-04941 JSW (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2006)

Opinion

No. C 04-04941 JSW.

July 3, 2006

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO VACATE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND TO ENTER DISMISSAL ORDER

JEFFREY WHITE, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the parties' joint motion to vacate this Court's Claim Construction Order dated November 8, 2005 and the Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated March 1, 2006.

ANALYSIS

On June 30, 2006, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement in this matter. Pursuant to the terms of that agreement, the parties ask the Court to vacate its rulings on claim construction and summary judgment and to dismiss the matter with prejudice. A district court may vacate an order granting judgment upon consideration of "`the consequences and attendant hardships of dismissal or refusal to dismiss' and `the competing values of finality of judgment and right to re-litigation of unreviewed disputes.'" American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9^th Cir. 1998) (citing Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (9^th Cir. 1995) (quoting Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720, 722 (9^th Cir. 1982))).

In this case, however, the claims construction order and order granting summary judgment were interlocutory in nature and did not fully adjudicate the rights and claims of the parties. Thus, they can be vacated at any time prior to final judgment. See, e.g., Persistence Software, Inc. v. The Object People, Inc., 200 FRAT 626, 627 (N.D. Cal. 2001); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). In support of their motion, the parties contend that the agreement to file the instant motion was a significant factor in successfully resolving this litigation. The Court concludes that there are no considerations that would justify denial of the motion. Accordingly, the parties' joint motion to vacate is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court's Claim Construction Order dated November 8, 2005 (Docket No. 78) and the Court's Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement dated March 1, 2006 (Docket No. 160) are VACATED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant and Defendant's counterclaims against Plaintiff are HEREBY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.