On September 15, 2006, plaintiff moved for entry of final judgment of non-infringement, conceding that the items it had accused of infringement did not infringe under the court's construction of the patent claim terms. It acknowledged that each accused device included a computer with attached keyboard and display affixed and that some of the accused devices did not have all of the connectors on the housing in the single connector. Plaintiff sought dismissal of defendants' counterclaims. At first glance, this motion seemed to be a means of bringing the case to an end. However, defendants opposed the motion on the ground that the parties could not agree on a form of judgment that would result in resolution of the matter without leaving important issues for further litigation, while allowing plaintiff to appeal.
On September 15, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of final judgment of non-infringement, acknowledging that the accused items did not infringe under the court's interpretation of the patent claim terms. The plaintiff admitted that each accused device included a computer with an attached keyboard and display, and that some devices lacked all the required connectors on the housing in a single connector. The plaintiff also requested the dismissal of the defendants' counterclaims. While this motion appeared to aim at concluding the case, the defendants opposed it, arguing that the parties could not agree on a judgment form that would fully resolve the matter without leaving significant issues open for further litigation, while still allowing the plaintiff to pursue an appeal.
On September 15, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for final judgment of non-infringement, acknowledging that the items it accused of infringing did not violate the court's interpretation of the patent claim terms. The plaintiff noted that each accused device contained a computer along with a connected keyboard and display, and that some devices lacked all connectors on the housing in a single arrangement. The plaintiff also aimed for a dismissal of the defendants' counterclaims. While this motion appeared to suggest a conclusion to the case, the defendants opposed it, arguing that the parties could not reach an agreement on a form of judgment that would resolve the matter completely without leaving significant issues for future litigation and still allow for the plaintiff to appeal.
On September 15, 2006, plaintiff moved for final judgment of non-infringement, recognizing that the goods it claimed to infringe did not infringe the court's reading of the patent claim terms. Plaintiff also pointed out that each alleged device had a computer and a connected keyboard and display, and that some devices did not have all connectors on the housing in one configuration. Plaintiff also sought dismissal of defendants' counterclaims. Although this motion seemed to indicate a final disposition of the case, defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that the parties could not agree on a form of judgment which would dispose of the case in its entirety without leaving any substantial questions for future proceedings and yet permit plaintiff to appeal.
On September 15, 2006, the plaintiff moved for final judgment of non-infringement, conceding that the products it alleged infringed were not infringing under the court's interpretation of the patent claim terms. The plaintiff observed that each accused device had a computer, and a keyboard and display connected thereto, and that some devices had no connectors on the housing in any one arrangement. The plaintiff also sought a dismissal of the defendants' counterclaims. Although this motion seemed to indicate a finality to the case, the defendants objected, contending that the parties could not agree on a form of judgment that would dispose of the case in full and leave no substantial issues for future litigation and still permit the plaintiff to appeal.