FORTINET, INC. v. FireEYE, INC.

Case No. 3:13-cv-02496-HSG.

FORTINET, INC., Plaintiff, v. FIREEYE, INC., Defendant. FIREEYE, INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. FORTINET, INC., Counterclaim Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division.

September 21, 2015.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

JOHN M. NEUKOM , JORDAN R. JAFFE , MATTHEW D. CANNON , ANDREW M. HOLMES , QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant FORTINET, INC.

LAUREL KILGOUR , DAVID SIMSON , GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, San Francisco, California, J. ANTHONY DOWNS (pro hac vice), DANIEL M. FORMAN (pro hac vice), GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, PHONG T. DINH (pro hac vice), GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Washington, DC, SHANE BRUN , RACHEL M. WALSH , GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, San Francisco, California, CHARLES H. SANDERS (pro hac vice), LANA SHIFERMAN (pro hac vice), GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff FIREEYE, INC.


JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF STATE LAW CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE AND OF PATENT CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Action Filed: June 5, 2013

WHEREAS, on September 21, 2015, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Fortinet, Inc. ("Fortinet"), and Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff FireEye, Inc. ("FireEye") entered into a settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement") addressing all issues and controversies in the above-entitled action, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a);

THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties, through their respective counsel of record herein, that:

1) Fortinet's state law claims (Counts VII-VIII of Fortinet's Second Amended Complaint, D.I. 71) shall be dismissed with prejudice; 2) Fortinet's patent infringement claims (Counts I-VI of Fortinet's Second Amended Complaint, D.I. 71), and FireEye's corresponding counterclaims for declaratory relief of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability (Counts IV-V of D.I. 85) shall be dismissed without prejudice; 3) FireEye's patent infringement counterclaims (Counts I-III of D.I. 85), and Fortinet's corresponding counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity (First through Sixth Counterclaims of D.I. 88) shall be dismissed without prejudice; 4) The parties shall each bear their own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees; 5) All signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing's content and have authorized the filing.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Fortinet, Inc.'s state law claims are dismissed with prejudice, and that the parties' respective patent infringement claims and corresponding counterclaims for invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement are dismissed without prejudice.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases