Case 1:10-cv-00734-RGA Document 215 Filed 10/04/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 4669

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

L-3 Communications Corporation,

Plaintiffs;

v.

Civil Action No. 10-734-RGA

Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc., and Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM

Before the Court is PlaintiffL-3 Communications Corporation's Motion for Entry of Judgment (D.I. 200), Defendant's Opposition (D.I. 212), and Plaintiffs Reply (D.I. 214). For the reasons below, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff L-3 asks the Court to exercise its discretion to enter final judgment consistent with the summary judgment ruling by either: (1) Proceeding to final judgment of non-infringement and dismissing any outstanding counterclaims without prejudice; or (2) Proceeding to final judgment of non-infringement pursuant to Rule 54(b) and staying the counterclaims pending resolution of the appeal. The decision whether to dismiss a counterclaim of invalidity where the Court has found no infringement is soundly within the Court's discretion. Phonometries, Inc. v. N Telecom Inc., 133 F.3d 1459, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Alternatively, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court may determine that there is no "just reason for delay" and direct the entry of final judgment of non-infringement while staying the remaining invalidity counterclaims.

Case 1:10-cv-00734-RGA Document 215 Filed 10/04/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4670

Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc., 339 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In order to find a "just reason

for delay," "it must be apparent, either from the district court's order or from the record itself, that there is a sound reason to justify departure from the general rule that all issues decided by the district court should be resolved in a single appeal of a final judgment." iLOR, LLC v.
Google, Inc., 550 F .3d 1067, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, trial is scheduled to start less than a

month away. Most of the preparation has already occurred. To delay would be a waste of the resources that have already been expended. L-3 further argues that this Court no longer has jurisdiction because there is no longer a case or controversy because the patent in suit has expired. In support of this L-3 cites to Sony
Electronics, Inc. v. Soundview Technologies, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D. Conn. 2005).

However, in that case the Federal Circuit had already affirmed the finding of non-infringement and the time for petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari had passed. ld at 176. In Sony, the court noted that "the infringement dispute between these parties is closed, and because Sharp's technology has been found to be non-infringing, Soundview's patent cannot be enforced against it regardless of whether inequitable conduct before the Patent Office took place." /d. Here the infringement dispute between L-3 and Sony is not over, as the claim construction will likely be appealed. The fact that the patent has subsequently expired has no bearing on the infringement allegations. Lastly, L-3 cites to DePalma v. Nike, Inc., 341 F. Supp. 2d 178 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) to buttress the proposition that the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction. But while the court in DePalma was asked to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal was predicated on the court's discretion to decline exercising jurisdiction over the counterclaim. Id at 181.

Case 1:10-cv-00734-RGA Document 215 Filed 10/04/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 4671

Entered this

tJ

~
day of October, 2013.