Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

B. Braun Melsungen AG, et al. v. Terumo Medical Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 09-347-JJF-LPS, November 18, 2009.

Stark, M.J.  Plaintiff’s request for non-infringement contentions in advance of the deadline in scheduling order is granted.  Plaintiff’s request for supplementation of Defendant’s interrogatory responses is denied.  Defendant’s request for supplementation of infringement contentions is denied.  Its request for discovery relating to conception and reduction to practice is denied.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS, November 13, 2009.

Stark, M.J.  The Magistrate makes recommendations regarding the construction of 24 disputed terms for the six patents-in-suit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Arendi Holding Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 09-119-JJF-LPS, November 4, 2009.

Stark, M. J.  The court will enter a new scheduling order to accommodate new discovery needed on provisional damages. Discovery issues are resolved.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Innovative Patents, LLC, et al. v. Brain-Pad, Inc., C.A. No. 07-680-MPT, November 4, 2009.

Thynge, M. J.  Defendant’s motion for fees and costs relating to the deposition of a 30(b)(6) corporate representative is granted in part.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Teles AG Informationstechnologien v. Quintum Technologies, LLC, C.A. No. 06-197-SLR-LPS, October 30, 2009.

Stark, M. J.  The Magistrate orders defendants to produce certain damages information within 20 days of the Order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Microsoft Corporation v. Webxchange Inc., C.A. No. 09-484-JJF, October 30, 2009.

Farnan, J.  Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. Office Media Network, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 08-96-GMS, October 23, 2009.

Sleet, C. J.  Defendant’s motion to dismiss is held in abeyance pending jurisdictional discovery. Defendant’s request to take jurisdictional discovery is granted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CNH America LLC and Blue Leaf I.P., Inc. v. Jon E. Kinzenbaw and Kinze Manufacturing, Inc.,
C.A. No. 08-945-GMS, November 9, 2009.

Sleet, C. J.  Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person and improper venue and to transfer venue is granted in part and denied in part.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., et al., v. Whirlpool Corporation, C.A. No. 08-234-GMS, November 9, 2009.

Sleet, C. J.   Court grants motion to dismiss certain counts alleged in Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 12(b)(6).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Holding AG, et al., Civ. No. 06-28-LPS, October 30, 2009.

The Magistrate recommends denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Disputed terms are construed following a Markman Hearing.  In addition recommendations are made on several competing motions for summary judgment.  Finally, the parties’ competing motions to preclude expert testimony are denied.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Linear Technology Corporation v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 06-476-GMS, November 12, 2009.

Sleet, C.J.  The Court denies defendant’s post-trial motions that the patents-in-suit are obvious, or alternatively for a new trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 06-33-SLR, November 9, 2009.

Robinson, J.  The court grant’s plaintiff’s request for clarification with respect to the court Final Judgment Order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 07-331-SLR, November 9, 2009.

Robinson, J.  The court finds after a bench trial that the defendant does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,464,632.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Personalized User Model LLP v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-525-JJF, October 27, 2009.

Farnan, J.  Defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California is denied.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In re: Brimonidine Patent Litigation, MDL Docket No. 07-md-1866-GMS, October 23, 2009.

Sleet, C. J.  The Court finds that the defendants' proposed generic products infringe the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit; (B) the patents-in-suit are not invalid; (C) the patents-in-suit are not unenforceable; and (D) an award for attorneys' fees and costs is not warranted in this case.  The Court also grants the plaintiff's Rule 52(c) motion, and denies defendant’s Rule 52(c) motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link