Court declines to rule patent was not anticipated.
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of no anticipation is denied.
Continue Reading...
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of no anticipation is denied.
Continue Reading...
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Oct. 31, 2006.
Jordan, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is granted.
Continue Reading...
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Oct. 26, 2006.
Jordan, J. This Markman decision addresses only those terms that appear to be dispositive of issues raised in pending motions.
Continue Reading...
Alloc, Inc. et al. v. Unilin Décor N.V. et al., No. 03-253 (GMS), Oct. 26, 2006.
Sleet, J. Motion to transfer granted.
Continue Reading...
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Summary judgment motions based upon invalidity and inequitable conduct are denied. Patent law expert testimony is precluded. Testimony of liability expert will be permitted except expert will not be permitted to opine inconsistently with the court’s claim construction.
Continue Reading...
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to join a party are denied. Defendant BBW’s motion for summary judgment based on misassignment of the patent to the Greenspan Company rather than The Greenspan Corporation was denied.
Continue Reading...
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Markman ruling with respect to disputed language in two claims of one patent-in-suit.
Continue Reading...
SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc. et al., No. 04-1199-SLR, Oct. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of invalidity are granted. Plaintiff’s motion regarding no anticipation is denied as moot. Defendants’ motion for failure to disclose best mode is denied as moot.
Continue Reading...
Sanofi-Aventis et al., v. Advancis Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 03-1083-SLR, Sept. 26, 2006.
Robinson, J. After a bench trial in May, 2005, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ruled in favor of Aventis in this trademark infringement action. The court will order a permanent injunction and cancellation of defendant’s trademark.
Positec USA Inc. et al. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., No. 05-890 GMS, Sept. 25, 2006.
Sleet, J. The court denied a motion to dismiss this declaratory judgment action alleged to be unripe due to no objectively reasonably apprehension of imminent suit.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. 04-1371–JJF Sept. 20, 2006.
Farnan, J. Court grants 3 of 19 motions in limine filed by defendants, and 1 1/2 out of 5 motions filed by plaintiff.
Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Sicor Inc. et al., No. 04-833-KAJ, Aug. 17. 2006.
Jordan, J. The Court construed claims regarding patent disclosing a “sterile, pyrogen-free, ready-to-use solution of anthracycline glycoside” used for treating tumors. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for lack of written description were denied. The Court granted plaintiff’s motion regarding defendants’ anticipation defense, and denied defendants’ motion on anticipation. Plaintiff’s motion regarding defendants’ unclean hands defense was denied.
Novozymes A/S v. Genencor International, Inc. et al., No 05-160-KAJ, Aug. 24, 2006.
Jordan, J. Defendants were found to infringe an enforceable patent relating to alpha-amylase enzymes after bench trial. A bench trial on willfulness and damages will follow. The 64-page opinion also addresses claim construction.
Praxair, Inc. et al. v. ATMI, Inc. et al., No. 03-1158-SLR, Aug. 17, 2006
Robinson, J. Motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial, is denied. Defendant’s argument that no reasonable jury could have found that defendant’s products infringe was rejected. Expert’s unrebutted yet conclusory testimony failed to persuade the jury and does not meet the necessary clear and convincing standard. New trial unwarranted since excluded evidence resulted from trial by ambush tactics.
Continue Reading...
Affymetrix, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 04-901-JJF, Aug. 16, 2006.
Farnan, J. The court construed 15 terms after a Markman hearing on April 20, 2006.
Continue Reading...
Affymetrix, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 04-901-JJF, Aug. 16, 2006.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss count II relating to U.S. Patent No. 5,795,716 because of lack of title to the ‘716 patent and therefore lack of standing was denied.
Continue Reading...
Monsanto v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. et al., No. 04-305-SLR, Aug. 4, 2006.
Robinson, J. Syngenta foreign holding companies’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. The disputed technology involves glyphosate-tolerant corn.
Continue Reading...
Monsanto v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., No. 04-305-SLR, Aug. 4, 2006.
Robinson, J. Syngenta’s motion to dismiss Monsanto’s counterclaims of reverse passing off and false advertising under the Lanham Act was granted. Syngenta’s motion to dismiss Monsanto’s counterclaim alleging violations of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act was denied. The disputed technology relates to glyphosate-tolerant corn.
Continue Reading...
Affinion Net Patents, Inc. v. Maritz, Inc., No. 04-360-JJF, July 28, 2006.
Farnan, J. Patentee’s motion to compel two claims charts where privilege was waived due to advice-of-counsel defense was denied.
Continue Reading...
Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Ivex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 03-891-JJF July 25, 2006.
Farnan, J. After a bench trial, the court sustained about 10 out of 30 evidentiary objections after post-trial briefing.
Continue Reading...
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, July 17, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of privileged documents denied.
Continue Reading...
Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al., v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 03-891-JJF; July 13, 2006.
Farnan, J. After 5-day bench trial, court finds defendants have not established that the patents-in-suit are invalid as anticipated, obvious, or impermissibly broadened upon reissue, nor that a patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
Zoetics, Inc. et al., v. Yahoo!, Inc., No. 06-108-JJF, July 6, 2006.
Farnan, J. Motion to stay action and transfer is denied. Despite the fact that New York would be more convenient for the witnesses, and the bankruptcy proceedings were pending in New York, the plaintiff’s choice of forum was paramount.
Continue Reading...
Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 03-1035-SLR, June 28, 2006.
Robinson, J. Claim construction opinion.
Continue Reading...
Thales Airborne Systems S.A. et al. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp., No. 05-853-SLR, June 21, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to transfer is denied. A motion to enjoin a New Jersey suit with additional patents in dispute filed hours after the Delaware suit is granted with respect to patents already part of the Delaware action and denied with respect to patents first filed in New Jersey.
Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp. v. Hercules Inc., et al., No. 04-293-KAJ, June 20, 2006.
Jordan, J. The court narrowly construes “cross-linking agent” and “microbead” based upon statements made during prosecution. Request for construction of other claims is denied without prejudice. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement due to the absence of a “cross-linking agent” and “microbead” in the accused product. is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is denied.
Turn of the Century Solution, L.P. v. International Rectifier Corp., No. 05-816-SLR, June 15, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion to transfer to California where breach of contract case relating to patents was filed was denied.
Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al., No. 03-027-SLR, May 11, 2006.
Robinson, J. Juries found for plaintiff against defendants in separate trials. Defendants’ motions for JMOL are denied. Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement and invalidity of ‘021 patent is denied. BSC’s motion for reconsideration of the “without prejudice” aspect of order dismissing claims against one product is denied.
Monsanto Company et al. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., C.A. 04-305-SLR, May 10, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of two patents-in-suit, and non-enablement of the third patent were granted. Other motions denied as moot.
Commissariat A L'Energie Atomique v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 03-484-KAJ, Apr. 18, 2006.
Jordan, J. Redacted opinion regarding Defendants’ motion to disclose material designated as highly confidential pursuant to the protective order to defendants. The motion was granted.
McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Pretrial order regarding disputed deposition designations.
McKesson Information Solutions, LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 5, 2006.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is denied due to genuine issues of material fact. Defendant’s motion is granted in part where plaintiff’s experts have not performed a structure to structure comparison as required in a means plus function infringement analysis. It is otherwise denied.
Continue Reading...Power Integrations, Inc., v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al.,
No. 04-1371-JJF, March 31, 2006.
Farnan, J. Claim construction decision with respect to patents which relate to integrated circuit devices used in power supplies. The Court construes 16 claim terms from 4 patents. It declines at this juncture to import a limitation from a claim term not found in the patent.
Sony Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Orion IP, LLC, No. 05-255-GMS, Mar. 14, 2006.
Sleet, J. Motion to dismiss or stay under first-filed rule is granted in part and denied in part. Claims of plaintiff who was a party to Texas action were severed and transferred.
Robinson, J. Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of judgment was affirmed in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs requested prejudgment interest through the entry of judgment after appeal. Prejudgment interest was allowed only up to the date of the original district court judgment.
Farnan, J. Motion to dismiss claims against individual defendants for improper venue granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay is granted.
Continue Reading...Padcom, Inc. v. Netmotion Wireless, Inc., No. 03-983-SLR, Mar. 8, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion for reconsideration granted. Various requests for clarification are addressed.
Guidant Corp. et al. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. et al., No. 04-0067-SLR, Jan. 6, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion for summary judgment that reissued patent is invalid under “Recapture Rule” was denied.
Continue Reading...Corning Incorporated, et al. v. SRU Biosystems, et al., No. 03-633-JJF, Mar. 7, 2006.
Farnan, J. No inequitable conduct found. SRU is permanently enjoined from engaging in infringing activity.
Continue Reading...Padcom, Inc. v. Netmotion Wireless, Inc., No. 03-983-SLR, Feb 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Court construes 16 words or phrases.
Continue Reading...Padcom, Inc. v. Netmotion Wireless, Inc., No. 03-983-SLR, Feb 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of noninvalidity is granted in part, denied in part. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on lack of written description and indefiniteness is denied.
Continue Reading...Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 03-983-SLR, Feb. 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity with respect to three patents-in-suit denied.
Continue Reading...Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 03-983-SLR, Feb. 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Infringement and noninfringement summary judgment motions granted in part, denied in part.
Continue Reading...eSpeed, Inc. et al. v. Brokertec USA, L.L.C., et al., No. 03-612-KAJ, Feb. 22, 2006.
Jordan, J. Post-trial rulings finding inequitable conduct. No attorneys’ fees awarded despite exceptional case.
Continue Reading...
Jordan, J. Court resolved disputes over proposed jury instructions relating to contributory infringement.
Microstrategy Incorporated v. Business Objects Americas, No. 03-1124-KAJ, Jan. 23, 2006.
Jordan, J. Court provided claim construction. Also summary judgment motion regarding noninfringement was granted; motion regarding infringement was denied. Motion as to invalidity of 2 of 3 patents was granted; motion regarding invalidity of third patent was denied. Also denied as moot were defendant’s motions regarding noninfringement of the two invalid patents.
Continue Reading...Corning Inc., et al., v. SRU BioSystems, et al., No. 03-633-JJF, Jan. 20, 2006.
Farnan, J. Motion for reconsideration of prior rulings on invalidity for lack of written description and indefiniteness is denied.
Continue Reading...IMX, Inc. v. Lendingtree, LLC, No. 03-1067-SLR, Jan. 10, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion for reconsideration denied regarding prior summary judgment ruling granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment limiting damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 287(a).
Philips Electronics N. Am. Corp. et al. v. Contec Corp. et al., No. 02-123-KAJ, Jan. 9, 2006.
Jordan, J. Motion for summary judgment on liability of indirect infringement was granted; motion for summary judgment of inducement of infringement was denied as moot. A direct infringement claim was dismissed at the consent of the patentee. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and failure to provide damages, as well as Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs, were denied.
IMX, Inc. v. Lendingtree, LLC, No. 03-1067-SLR; Jan. 6, 2006.
Robinson, J: Pretrial conference request to limit plaintiff from arguing inference based upon the opinion of counsel, which addressed invalidity but not infringement was granted.
The Federal Circuit made it clear in Knorr-Bremse that no adverse inference flows from the failure to obtain an exculpatory opinion of counsel. However, evidence that the opinion of counsel addressed invalidity but not infringement may be considered by the trier of fact in assessing willful infringement taking into account the totality of the circumstances. No inference may be drawn to suggest that such an opinion, had it been acquired, would have been unfavorable to defendant.
Continue Reading...