Internet Media Corporation v. Hearst Newspapers, LLC, Civ. No. 10-690-SLR, June 28, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.
Continue Reading...AstraZeneca LP, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C. A. No. 08-453-GMS, June 23, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Post-trial findings of fact and law of non-infringement of proposed ANDA product
Continue Reading...Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Checkpoint Software Technologies LTD., et al., Civ. No. 10-1067-LPS, June 22, 2011.
Stark, J. Motion to transfer is denied.
Continue Reading...Gian Biologics, LLC v. Biomet Inc. and Biomet Biologics, LLC, Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS, June 21, 2011.
Stark, J. Stay was entered pending completion of discovery on personal jurisdiction and venue issues.
Continue Reading...Brinkmeier v. Bic Corporation et al., Civ. No. 09-860-SLR; Brinkmeier v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Civ. No. 10-01-SLR, June 15, 2011.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider dismissal of false marking claims is denied.
Continue Reading...Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Nycomed US Inc., C. A. No. 10-1099-SLR, June 16, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion to transfer ANDA litigation to New York is granted.
Continue Reading...Marvel International LTD. v. Link_A_Media Devices Corp., Civ. No. 10-869-SLR, June 8, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion to transfer patent litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is denied notwithstanding the fact that defendant is a regional enterprise with a principal place of business in California.
Continue Reading...Everglades Interactive, LLC v. Playdom, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 10-902-SLR, June 8, 2011.
Robinson, J. The defendants’ motion to transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is denied even though some of the defendants involved in the litigation are foreign corporations.
Continue Reading...XPRT Ventures, LLC v. eBay Inc., Paypal, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 10-595-SLR, June 8, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion to transfer patent litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is denied notwithstanding forum selection clause in confidentiality agreement.
Continue Reading...Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Sonic Innovations, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 05-422-GMS, June 7, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and invalidity and for a new trial granted in part and denied in part. The jury’s finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was reversed as to two claims of one of the patents-in-suit due to prosecution history estoppel. The jury’s finding of validity and infringement as to the other patent-in-suit was preserved. The defendants’ request for a new trial on the issues of infringement and invalidity was denied. Plaintiff’s motion for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest was granted. All other post-trial motions were denied.
Continue Reading...St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co., LTD., et al., C. A. No. 04-1436-LPS, June 1, 2011 and St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. Palm Inc., et al., C.A. No. 06-404-LPS, June 1, 2011.
Stark, J. The parties requested withdrawal of a motion for recusal because the Federal Circuit’s claim construction substantially altered the posture of the cases over which Judge Stark presided during his tenure as magistrate. The request was accepted, and the motion for recusal denied with prejudice.
Continue Reading...Accenture Global Services, GmbH and Accenture, LLP v. Guidewire Software, Inc., Civ. No. 07-826-SLR, May 31, 2011.
Robinson, J. Patents are held invalid as directed to abstract ideas; motion for clarification, reargument, and/or certification is granted as to clarification and denied in all other respects; and motion to strike portions of reply brief is denied as moot.
Continue Reading...Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc., C. A. No. 09-791-GMS, June 1, 2011.
Sleet, C.J. Plaintiff’s motion to stay defendant’s patent claims pending reexamination before the USPTO is denied; defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s requests for declaratory judgment that it met its FRAND licensing obligations is not barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel; and denied defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s defense alleging anticompetitive conduct.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
