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...
No infringement in camera patent dispute
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...
Markman decision relating to a system for storing video images
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...
Case transferred to Wisconsin where related litigation is pending
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...
Over $2.5 in fees and expenses awarded to Patentee in exceptional case
Philips Electronics North America Corp. et al. v. Compo Micro Tech, Inc., et al., No. 02-123-KAJ, Oct. 23, 2006.
Jordan, J. The Court awarded $2,448,750 in attorneys fees and $285,690.44 in expenses. $2,515,514.90 in fees and $747,141.93 had been requested. Continue Reading...
Jordan, J. The Court awarded $2,448,750 in attorneys fees and $285,690.44 in expenses. $2,515,514.90 in fees and $747,141.93 had been requested. Continue Reading...
Summary judgment of non-infringement granted
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion based on infringement is denied. Defendants’ non-infringement motions are granted. Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion based on infringement is denied. Defendants’ non-infringement motions are granted. Continue Reading...
Invalidity summary judgment motions denied; patent law experts precluded
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...
Court is unpersuaded by champetry argument
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...
Court construes claims relating to skin care product
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...
Court construes claims found in patents relating to the monitoring and surveillance of computer networks for intrusion detection
SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc. et al., No. 04-1199-SLR, Oct. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Claim construction provided for 22 terms found in 4 patents relating to relate to the monitoring and surveillance of computer networks for intrusion detection. Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Claim construction provided for 22 terms found in 4 patents relating to relate to the monitoring and surveillance of computer networks for intrusion detection. Continue Reading...
Defendants prevail on invalidity arguments
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...
Motions for summary judgment of non-infringement granted in part and denied in part
SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc. et al., No. 04-1199-SLR, Oct. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Symantec’s motions for non-infringement are granted in part and denied in part; Internet Securities Systems’ motion is denied. Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Symantec’s motions for non-infringement are granted in part and denied in part; Internet Securities Systems’ motion is denied. Continue Reading...
"Advancis" mark cancelled as confusingly similar to "Aventis"
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.
Threat against Chinese affiliate provided reasonable apprehension of suit by American company importing accused product
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.
No inequitable conduct found where withheld art was cumulative
Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, No. 02-1694 GMS, Sept. 25, 2006.
Sleet, J. The court held a bench trial on inequitable conduct while jury deliberated on infringement and willfulness. After a willful infringement verdict, the court ruled that the patents were not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...
Sleet, J. The court held a bench trial on inequitable conduct while jury deliberated on infringement and willfulness. After a willful infringement verdict, the court ruled that the patents were not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...
A few in limine motions granted before jury trial; most denied
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.
Declaratory judgment action dismissed as unripe
Angiodynamics v. Diomed Holdings, Inc., No. 06-02 –GMS Sept. 7, 2006.
Sleet, J. Declaratory judgment action was dismissed due to no justiciable controversy. A motion to amend the complaint was also denied as futile.
Continue Reading...
Sleet, J. Declaratory judgment action was dismissed due to no justiciable controversy. A motion to amend the complaint was also denied as futile.
Continue Reading...
Licensing dispute pursuant to European standard-setting procedures was remanded to Chancery Court
Nokia Corp. et al. v. Qualcom, Inc., No. 06-509-JJF, Aug. 29, 2006.
Farnan, J. Motion to remand to Chancery Court for interpretation of contractual agreements is granted in the absence of a substantial question of patent law.
Continue Reading...
Farnan, J. Motion to remand to Chancery Court for interpretation of contractual agreements is granted in the absence of a substantial question of patent law.
Continue Reading...
Pretrial rulings favor patentee after court adopts broader claim constructions
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' patent was found to be enforceable and infringed
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.
Subpoena quashed where former employees had already provided testimony
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., No. 04-1371-JJF, Aug. 24, 2006.
Farnan, J. The court quashed a third party subpoena of Intersil as cumulative to and duplicative of previous subpoenas issued to Intersil’s former employees. Non cumulative topics were held to be irrelevant to this lawsuit.
Continue Reading...
Farnan, J. The court quashed a third party subpoena of Intersil as cumulative to and duplicative of previous subpoenas issued to Intersil’s former employees. Non cumulative topics were held to be irrelevant to this lawsuit.
Continue Reading...
Untimely amendment allowed to assert prosecution laches defense, but not inequitable conduct
Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., Nos. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Aug. 23, 2006.
Thynge, M.J. The court granted defendants’ motion to amend their pleadings to assert prosecution laches defenses and counterclaims, and denied the motion with respect to three additional inequitable conduct allegations.
Continue Reading...
Thynge, M.J. The court granted defendants’ motion to amend their pleadings to assert prosecution laches defenses and counterclaims, and denied the motion with respect to three additional inequitable conduct allegations.
Continue Reading...
Jury verdict against ATMI stands and court denies JMOL and new trial application
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...
DJ count dismissed as unripe where accused product lacked FDA approval; stay granted pending reexamination
Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 05-590 GMS, Aug. 16, 2006.
Sleet, J. Motion to dismiss complaint is granted as to declaratory judgment count, and denied as to infringement count; motion to strike amended complaint is granted; and motion to stay pending reexamination is granted.
Continue Reading...
Sleet, J. Motion to dismiss complaint is granted as to declaratory judgment count, and denied as to infringement count; motion to strike amended complaint is granted; and motion to stay pending reexamination is granted.
Continue Reading...
Court construes 15 terms from five patents-in-suit
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...
Consulting agreement provided standing to bring suit
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...
Inequitable conduct relief denied in part and deferred in part pending additional proof as to intent
Praxair, Inc. et al. v. ATMI, Inc. et al., No. 03-1158-SLR, Aug. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. The Court finds Defendant failed to prove inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence after a bench trial with respect to some art, but with respect to others, it deferred ruling pending additional proof as to intent. Trial testimony waived attorney client privilege with respect to communications between the attorney and the inventors, which will be reviewed in camera for evidence of intent.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. The Court finds Defendant failed to prove inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence after a bench trial with respect to some art, but with respect to others, it deferred ruling pending additional proof as to intent. Trial testimony waived attorney client privilege with respect to communications between the attorney and the inventors, which will be reviewed in camera for evidence of intent.
Continue Reading...
Plaintiff's DOE claims barred by prosecution history estoppel
Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., No. 99-309 (GMS), Aug. 14, 2006.
Sleet, J. After en banc remand, and two day bench trial the court holds that prosecution history estoppel bars plaintiff from asserting the doctrine of equivalents.
Continue Reading...
Sleet, J. After en banc remand, and two day bench trial the court holds that prosecution history estoppel bars plaintiff from asserting the doctrine of equivalents.
Continue Reading...
Stream of commerce insufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over foreign holding companies
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...
Seed, not its resistant trait, is protected by the Lanham Act
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...
Privilege not waived in asserting advice of counsel defense where documents were not disclosed to accused infringer
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...
Evidentiary rulings after bench trial
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...
Transfer to forum where related litigation is ongoing granted
Cashedge, Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc., No. 06-170-JJF, July 19, 2006.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to transfer to California where there is prior litigation over related technologies, although different patents, is granted.
Continue Reading...
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to transfer to California where there is prior litigation over related technologies, although different patents, is granted.
Continue Reading...
Wavier of privilege as a result of advice of counsel defense does not extend to all communications with trial counsel
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...
Judgment against generic pharmaceutical company IVAX after bench trial
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.
Choice of Delaware forum outweighed interest in litigating in bankruptcy forum
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...
ANDA filing held not to support claim of willful infringement
Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GMBH et al, v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al., No. 05-700-KAJ, July 6, 2006.
Jordan, J. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of prior ruling denying motion to strike willfulness allegations is granted and exceptional case discovery is stayed.
Continue Reading...
Jordan, J. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of prior ruling denying motion to strike willfulness allegations is granted and exceptional case discovery is stayed.
Continue Reading...
Claims relating to data networks are construed
Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 03-1035-SLR, June 28, 2006.
Robinson, J. Claim construction opinion.
Continue Reading...
Apparatus claims held not indefinite and free of method-of-use limitations
Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 03-1035-SLR, June 28, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity is denied.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity is denied.
Continue Reading...
Trade secret count survives motion to dismiss
Mobius Management Systems, Inc. v. Acartus, Inc., No. 05-346-SLR, June 28, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to strike, dismiss and stay amended complaint is denied.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to strike, dismiss and stay amended complaint is denied.
Continue Reading...
Plaintiff's choice of forum upheld despite suit with additional patents filed only hours later in another forum
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.
Narrow claims construction results in summary judgment of noninfringement
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.
Plaintiff's choice of forum prevailed after transfer motion
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.
New Lanham Act claims added on eve of expert discovery claims permitted
Affinion Net Patents, Inc. v. Maritz, Inc., No. 04-360-JJF, June 8, 2006.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert Lanham claims and to dismiss counterclaims based on testimony that accused product was never implemented was granted.
Continue Reading...
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert Lanham claims and to dismiss counterclaims based on testimony that accused product was never implemented was granted.
Continue Reading...
New trial and JMOL on infringement and invalidity were denied
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. et al. v. Cordis Corp. et al., No. 03-283-SLR, June 15, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement and invalidity is denied. Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ reply brief is granted in part and denied in part. New arguments are stricken.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement and invalidity is denied. Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ reply brief is granted in part and denied in part. New arguments are stricken.
Continue Reading...
Court construes six terms after parties submitted twenty-two for construction
LG. Philips LCD Co. Ltd v. Tatung Co. et. al., No. 05-292-JJF, June 13, 2006.
Farnan, J. Claim construction provided relating to flat panel display screens and methods of manufacturing them that include electrostatic discharge guard rings to protect the active elements of the display from electrostatic discharge.
Continue Reading...
Farnan, J. Claim construction provided relating to flat panel display screens and methods of manufacturing them that include electrostatic discharge guard rings to protect the active elements of the display from electrostatic discharge.
Continue Reading...
Case remanded to Chancery Court after dismissal of Lanham Act claims
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Albermarle Corp., Inc., No. 05-892-JJF, June 8, 2006.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act claims was granted. Supplemental state court claims were remanded to the Court of Chancery.
Continue Reading...
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Lanham Act claims was granted. Supplemental state court claims were remanded to the Court of Chancery.
Continue Reading...
Covenant not to sue allows plaintiff to dismiss its patent suit with prejudice
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., No. 658-GMS, June 2, 2006.
Sleet, J. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss its patent suit with prejudice is granted after plaintiff gave defendant a covenant not to sue.
Continue Reading...
Sleet, J. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss its patent suit with prejudice is granted after plaintiff gave defendant a covenant not to sue.
Continue Reading...
Antitrust component of patent dispute withstands motion to dismiss
Abbott Laboratories et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Nos. 02-1512-KAJ, 03-120-KAJ, 05-340-KAJ, 05-360-KAJ (consolidated), May 26, 2006.
Jordan, J. The Court denied Abbott and Fournier’s motion to dismiss various antitrust actions.
Continue Reading...
Jordan, J. The Court denied Abbott and Fournier’s motion to dismiss various antitrust actions.
Continue Reading...
Court declined to dismiss, bifurcate or stay antitrust counts and permitted 4 patent claims to be added
Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, No. 05-701-GMS, May 25, 2006.
Sleet, J. The Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss 6 counts of defendant’s amended answer relating to the Sherman Act, Lanham Act and state law claims. It further denied plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate or stay the antitrust claims from the patent claims. Defendant’s motion to amend to add four counterclaims of patent infringement was granted.
Continue Reading...
Sleet, J. The Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss 6 counts of defendant’s amended answer relating to the Sherman Act, Lanham Act and state law claims. It further denied plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate or stay the antitrust claims from the patent claims. Defendant’s motion to amend to add four counterclaims of patent infringement was granted.
Continue Reading...
Temporary lack of jurisdiction cured when affiliate was substituted for plaintiff
Affinion Loyalty Group, Inc. v. Maritz, Inc., C.A. 04-360-JJF, May 22, 2006.
Farnan, J. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a corporate acquisition which assigned rights to patents-in-suit to Affinion Patents, leaving Affinion Loyalty without standing. The court substituted Affinion Patents for Affinion Loyalty.
Continue Reading...
Farnan, J. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a corporate acquisition which assigned rights to patents-in-suit to Affinion Patents, leaving Affinion Loyalty without standing. The court substituted Affinion Patents for Affinion Loyalty.
Continue Reading...
JMOL and new trial motions denied after verdict of infringement and nonobviousness following remand
Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., Cons. C.A. 97-550-SLR, May 16, 2006 (corrected).
Robinson, J. Medtronic’s motion for new trial on Cordis’ patent infringement claims and Medtronic’s invalidity counter-claims, and Medtronic’s motion for JMOL on infringement are denied.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Medtronic’s motion for new trial on Cordis’ patent infringement claims and Medtronic’s invalidity counter-claims, and Medtronic’s motion for JMOL on infringement are denied.
Continue Reading...
Declaratory judgment action dismissed where plaintiff had no reasonable apprehension of suit
Fairplay Electric Cars, LLC v. Textron Innovations, Inc., No. 06-60-JJF, May 15, 2006.
Farnan, J. Georgia court preliminarily enjoined Fairplay from marketing golf cars. Fairplay sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement in Delaware relating to a golf car not accused in the Georgia action. Textron moved to dismiss, transfer, or stay the second-filed Delaware action. The motion was granted.
Continue Reading...
Farnan, J. Georgia court preliminarily enjoined Fairplay from marketing golf cars. Fairplay sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement in Delaware relating to a golf car not accused in the Georgia action. Textron moved to dismiss, transfer, or stay the second-filed Delaware action. The motion was granted.
Continue Reading...
Jury verdicts against both parties stand as JMOL is refused
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.
Defendants avoid trial after prevailing on non-infringement and non-enablement motions
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.
Defendants' counsel permitted to share summary of "highly confidential" licensing information with their clients
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.
Pretrial limitations on deposition testimony ordered
McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Pretrial order regarding disputed deposition designations.
Court rules on issues argued at pretrial conference
McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 11, 2006.
Robinson, J. The Court rules on bifurcated trial, in limine and discovery issues argued at the pretrial conference.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. The Court rules on bifurcated trial, in limine and discovery issues argued at the pretrial conference.
Continue Reading...
Claim construction relating to use of computer systems and method for analyzing medical service codes, including means plus function terms.
McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 5, 2006.
Robinson, J. The Court construes 27 terms, including means-plus-function terms.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. The Court construes 27 terms, including means-plus-function terms.
Continue Reading...
Fact issues preclude summary judgment on equitable defenses
McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 5, 2006.
Robinson, J. Cross motions for summary judgment of laches are denied due to genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s equitable defense is denied.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Cross motions for summary judgment of laches are denied due to genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s equitable defense is denied.
Continue Reading...
Insufficient means plus function evidence results in partial summary judgment of non-infringement
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...Claim construction relating to integrated circuit devices
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.
One plaintiff transferred to Texas where first-filed action was pending; the rest remain in Delaware
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.
Prejudgment interest accrued up to date of pre-appeal judgment
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.
Delaware the wrong forum for inventorship dispute
Farnan, J. Motion to dismiss claims against individual defendants for improper venue granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay is granted.
Continue Reading...Reconsideration granted after court reviews proper record
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.
Summary judgment of invalidity denied
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...No inequitable conduct found, injunction issues
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...Claim language relating to wireless communication construed
Padcom, Inc. v. Netmotion Wireless, Inc., No. 03-983-SLR, Feb 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Court construes 16 words or phrases.
Continue Reading...Defendant's summary judgment motions on invalidity denied; plaintiff's motion granted in part
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...Summary judgment of invalidity denied
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...Partial summary judgment granted to both sides regarding infringement
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...Patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; no attorneys fees awarded
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...
Constructive knowledge is sufficient to prove contributory infringement
Jordan, J. Court resolved disputes over proposed jury instructions relating to contributory infringement.
Court finds two patents invalid, and the third patent not infringed
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...Prior rulings on invalidity for lack of written description and indefiniteness are not recommended
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...Court declines to reconsider summary judgment ruling for partial summary judgment ruling limiting damages
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).
Universal remote controls found to infringe
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.
No adverse inference of infringement where opinion of counsel addressed only invalidity
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...
