Court declines to transfer to Michigan
Transfer denied where defendant's state of incorporation is Delaware
Pernod Ricard USA, LLC v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., No. 06-505-SLR, Dec. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion to transfer is denied.
Continue Reading...
Insurer's claim of no indemnification obligation is not ripe until underlying litigation is resolved
Farnan, J. Motion to dismiss without prejudice count II of the complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment that Hartford has no duty to indemnify Interdigital in connection with Nokia’s Lanham Act claim, is granted.
Continue Reading...
Reconsideration denied where Plaintiff injected new arguments
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 20, 2006.
Jordan, J. Motion for reargument and reconsideration of previous ruling of non-infringement is denied.
Continue Reading...
Threatening letter sufficient to establish actual controversy
Epic Systems Corporation v. Acacia Research Corporation et al., No. 06-255-JJF, Nov. 16, 2006.
Farnan, J. Motion to dismiss or transfer venue is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...
Summary judgment on opposed non-invalidity arguments is refused
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the patent is not invalid as obvious is granted in part and denied in part. Continue Reading...
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the patent is not invalid as obvious is granted in part and denied in part. Continue Reading...
Whether references qualify as prior art is left for trial
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that certain evidence cannot qualify as prior art is denied.
Continue Reading...
Cross motions for summary judgment of inequitable conduct denied
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Oct. 30, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that the patent-in-suit is not unenforceable due to alleged inequitable conduct is denied; defendants’ motion for summary judgment of inequitable conduct is denied.
Continue Reading...
