All but two of the Magistrate's rulings are adopted on appeal
McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Italia S.P.A. and Translogic Corporation, Civ. No.06-028-SLR, May 18, 2010.
Robinson, J. The Court adopts the Magistrate’s recommendations in part and overrules in part as follows:
(1) denies defendant’s motion to dismiss
for lack of standing and grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s lack of standing defense;
(2) denies defendant’s noninfringement motion;
(3) grants plaintiff’s motion re: no inequitable conduct;
(4) grants plaintiff’s motion re: validity and denies defendant’s invalidity motion;
(5) denies defendant’s motion re: no willfulness;
(6) denies plaintiff’s motion re: no patent misuse;
(7) grants plaintiff’s motion re: no unclean hands, waiver, laches and equitable estoppel and denies defendant’s re laches and estoppel;
(8) grants in part defendant’s motion re: failure to mark.
The court also adopts in part and overrules in part the recommended claim constructions, and denies defendant’s motion to reconsider the denial of its motion to exclude certain expert testimony.
The patents-in-suit claim automated systems for selecting and delivering packages to fill orders, such as patient prescriptions. Plaintiff alleges infringement through the manufacture and sale of the Pill Pick Automated Drug Management System. The Court rules on objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation on claim construction and the parties' motions for summary judgment, as well as the disposition of certain evidentiary disputes. The Court adopts the Magistrate’s findings that plaintiff has resolved any issue of ownership of the patents-in-suit and therefore has standing to sue. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to properly mark its Robot-Rx system. Therefore, plaintiff’s potential damages are limited beginning when defendant received a cease and desist letter. The Court upholds the Magistrate’s denial of defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony finding no error of law under Daubert. Next the Court adopts all but two of the Magistrate’s recommendations as to claims construction. Finally, the Court adopts the recommendation of no inequitable conduct, concluding that defendant has failed to demonstrate either that the patentees knew or should have known of the materiality of the references, or that they intended to deceive the PTO.
