Summary
noting in a patent infringement case that a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 is necessary to confer prevailing party status under Federal Circuit precedent
Summary of this case from Virtual Chart Sols. I v. MeredithOpinion
CASE NO. 6:16-CV-446-RWS-KNM LEAD CASE CASE NO. 6:16-CV-447-RWS-KNM CASE NO. 6:16-CV-448-RWS-KNM
07-23-2019
STRAGENT LLC, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al. STRAGENT LLC, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al. STRAGENT LLC, v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 120) containing her findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the BMW Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement (Docket No. 109) and Plaintiff Stragent LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket No. 111). The Report, filed on June 10, 2019, recommends that Plaintiff's claims against the BMW Defendants be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Report further recommends finding that the BMW Defendants are the prevailing parties and are entitled to an award of costs. The Report additionally recommends denying the BMW Defendants' request to bifurcate the quantum with respect to moving for attorneys' fees. Lastly, the Report recommends denying the BMW Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement (Docket No. 109) as moot.
The "BMW Defendants" include BMW of North America, LLC and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC.
The Report recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket No. 111) be granted-in-part and that Plaintiff's claims against Volvo Cars of North America, LLC ("Volvo") and the Mercedes-Benz Defendants be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Report also recommends finding that Volvo and the Mercedes-Benz Defendants are prevailing parties and are entitled to an award of costs.
The "Mercedes-Benz Defendants" include Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., and Daimler North America Corporation. --------
No written objections have been filed. Having reviewed the Report and relevant documents, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as those of the Court. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against the BMW Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The BMW Defendants are the prevailing parties and are entitled to an award of costs. The BMW Defendants' request to bifurcate the quantum with respect to moving for attorneys' fees is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Docket No. 111) is GRANTED-IN-PART, and Plaintiff's claims against Volvo and the Mercedes-Benz Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Volvo and the Mercedes-Benz Defendants are the prevailing parties and are entitled to an award of costs. It is further
ORDERED that the BMW Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Noninfringement (Docket No. 109) is DENIED AS MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of July, 2019.
/s/_________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE