Handheld Group AB v. Agile Systems, Inc.

S.D. California

Handheld Group AB v. Agile Systems, Inc.

DecidedJuly 15, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-01274

StatusUnknown

This text of Handheld Group AB v. Agile Systems, Inc. (Handheld Group AB v. Agile Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Handheld Group AB v. Agile Systems, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 HANDHELD GROUP AB, Case No. 20-cv-01274-BAS-DEB 11

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 v. STIPULATION AND ENTERING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 13 AGILE SYSTEMS, INC., [ECF No. 6] 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Request for Order 17 Entering Injunction. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff Handheld Group AB (“Handheld”) and 18 Defendant Agile Systems, Inc. (“Agile”) have stipulated to allow the entry and 19 enforcement of a preliminary injunction to safeguard any Handheld property in 20 Agile’s possession. (Id. ¶ 2.) 21 A stipulated preliminary injunction “is essentially a proposed injunction that 22 reflects a temporary settlement.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Enforma Nat. Prod., Inc., 23 362 F.3d 1204, 1218 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding a stipulated preliminary injunction 24 analogous to a consent decree, which “is no more than a settlement that contains an 25 injunction”). As such, a court “is empowered to enter and enforce stipulated 26 preliminary injunctions.” Montrose Envtl. Grp., Inc. v. Zephyr Air Quality Servs., 27 LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00433-SAB, 2017 WL 393606, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2017); 1 is well established that the district court has the inherent authority to enforce 2 compliance with a consent decree that it has entered in an order, to hold parties in 3 contempt for violating the terms therein, and to modify a decree.”). 4 Because this injunction preserves the status quo and is agreed to by Defendant, 5 it is “fair, reasonable[,] and equitable and does not violate the law or public policy.” 6 See Montrose, 2017 WL 393606 at *1 (quoting Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls 7 Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990)). As such, the Court finds good 8 cause to GRANT the Joint Stipulation and ENTER the preliminary injunction. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 (1) Based on the joint stipulation between the Handheld and Agile, an 11 injunction shall be issue immediately, without a bond, in accordance with this Order. 12 (2) Agile shall immediately continue to preserve, protect and safeguard all 13 Property in its possession, custody and control pending the resolution of this action. 14 (3) Agile is enjoined from disposing of, dissipating, destroying, selling, 15 transferring or otherwise losing possession of certain tangible personal property that 16 is owned by Handheld in the possession of Agile (the “Property”), or placing the 17 Property in a place where it cannot be accessed or retrieved by Handheld if this Court 18 determines that Handheld is entitled to possession of the Property. 19 (4) This injunction shall remain in place until such time as this Court enters 20 an order regarding Handheld’s claim to possession of the Property, as alleged in this 21 action, or, if there is no such Order entered granting or denying the claim to 22 possession, until the dismissal of this action or as otherwise stipulated by the Parties. 23 (5) Agile shall, within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order, provide 24 to Handheld an accounting and inventory which identifies in detail each item of 25 Property in Agile’s possession, custody and control, the place or places where such 26 Property is stored, and the means by which Agile is safeguarding the Property. 27 1 (6) This Order shall apply to the following, which shall comprise the 2 ||Property that Handheld alleges is owned by Handheld and which Agile agrees to 3 || address in the accounting and inventory referenced in the preceding paragraph: 4 a. Reel to reel test printer; 5 b. EVT test units/prototype parts; 6 Cc. DVT2A test units; 7 d. DVT2B test units; 8 e. MVT test units; 9 f. Hybrid DVT/MVT units; 10 g. 960 pieces of HP print ASIC to be used for production; 11 h. Chargers; 12 1. Batteries; 13 j- Final SDK/API documentation; 14 k. Final source code uploaded to GIT (minus proprietary code); 15 1. Final PC tool: 16 m. FCT Tool; 17 n. All tools and vendor locations 18 oO. All 2D and 3D drawings; and 19 p. All schematics and Bills of Materials. 20 Additionally, the Court ORDERS Handheld to serve Agile with this Order, 21 || by email or other means, no later than 12:00 p.m. on July 15, 2020. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 f fl 24 ||DATED: July 15, 2020 (Yi (Lyohan. f 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 HANDHELD GROUP AB, Case No. 20-cv-01274-BAS-DEB 11

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 v. STIPULATION AND ENTERING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 13 AGILE SYSTEMS, INC., [ECF No. 6] 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation and Request for Order 17 Entering Injunction. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff Handheld Group AB (“Handheld”) and 18 Defendant Agile Systems, Inc. (“Agile”) have stipulated to allow the entry and 19 enforcement of a preliminary injunction to safeguard any Handheld property in 20 Agile’s possession. (Id. ¶ 2.) 21 A stipulated preliminary injunction “is essentially a proposed injunction that 22 reflects a temporary settlement.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Enforma Nat. Prod., Inc., 23 362 F.3d 1204, 1218 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding a stipulated preliminary injunction 24 analogous to a consent decree, which “is no more than a settlement that contains an 25 injunction”). As such, a court “is empowered to enter and enforce stipulated 26 preliminary injunctions.” Montrose Envtl. Grp., Inc. v. Zephyr Air Quality Servs., 27 LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00433-SAB, 2017 WL 393606, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2017); 1 is well established that the district court has the inherent authority to enforce 2 compliance with a consent decree that it has entered in an order, to hold parties in 3 contempt for violating the terms therein, and to modify a decree.”). 4 Because this injunction preserves the status quo and is agreed to by Defendant, 5 it is “fair, reasonable[,] and equitable and does not violate the law or public policy.” 6 See Montrose, 2017 WL 393606 at *1 (quoting Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls 7 Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1990)). As such, the Court finds good 8 cause to GRANT the Joint Stipulation and ENTER the preliminary injunction. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 (1) Based on the joint stipulation between the Handheld and Agile, an 11 injunction shall be issue immediately, without a bond, in accordance with this Order. 12 (2) Agile shall immediately continue to preserve, protect and safeguard all 13 Property in its possession, custody and control pending the resolution of this action. 14 (3) Agile is enjoined from disposing of, dissipating, destroying, selling, 15 transferring or otherwise losing possession of certain tangible personal property that 16 is owned by Handheld in the possession of Agile (the “Property”), or placing the 17 Property in a place where it cannot be accessed or retrieved by Handheld if this Court 18 determines that Handheld is entitled to possession of the Property. 19 (4) This injunction shall remain in place until such time as this Court enters 20 an order regarding Handheld’s claim to possession of the Property, as alleged in this 21 action, or, if there is no such Order entered granting or denying the claim to 22 possession, until the dismissal of this action or as otherwise stipulated by the Parties. 23 (5) Agile shall, within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order, provide 24 to Handheld an accounting and inventory which identifies in detail each item of 25 Property in Agile’s possession, custody and control, the place or places where such 26 Property is stored, and the means by which Agile is safeguarding the Property. 27 1 (6) This Order shall apply to the following, which shall comprise the 2 ||Property that Handheld alleges is owned by Handheld and which Agile agrees to 3 || address in the accounting and inventory referenced in the preceding paragraph: 4 a. Reel to reel test printer; 5 b. EVT test units/prototype parts; 6 Cc. DVT2A test units; 7 d. DVT2B test units; 8 e. MVT test units; 9 f. Hybrid DVT/MVT units; 10 g. 960 pieces of HP print ASIC to be used for production; 11 h. Chargers; 12 1. Batteries; 13 j- Final SDK/API documentation; 14 k. Final source code uploaded to GIT (minus proprietary code); 15 1. Final PC tool: 16 m. FCT Tool; 17 n. All tools and vendor locations 18 oO. All 2D and 3D drawings; and 19 p. All schematics and Bills of Materials. 20 Additionally, the Court ORDERS Handheld to serve Agile with this Order, 21 || by email or other means, no later than 12:00 p.m. on July 15, 2020. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 f fl 24 ||DATED: July 15, 2020 (Yi (Lyohan. f 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Handheld Group AB v. Agile Systems, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handheld-group-ab-v-agile-systems-inc-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack