Andrew Paul Leonard v. Stemtech Health Sciences, Inc. and John Does 1-100, Civil Action No.08-67-JJF, July 16, 2010.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery and motion for leave to file an amended complaint are granted. The court declines to award costs of bringing the motion.
Continue Reading...LG Display Co., LTD. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.06-726-JJF and 07-357-JJF July 8, 2010.
Farnan, J. The Court awards damages against plaintiff for infringement together with prejudgment interest. Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied.
Continue Reading...Microsoft Corporation v. WebXchange Inc., C. A. No.09-484-JJF, May 31, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied.
Continue Reading...Trueposition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, Civ. No.05-747-SLR, May 4, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for supplemental damages based on “previously undisclosed sales for pre-injunction activity and sanctions for post-injunction activity are denied.
Continue Reading...Santarus Inc., et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., C. A. No.07-551-GMS, April 14, 2010.
Sleet, C. J. The court enters judgment in favor of defendant after a bench trial on the issue of invalidity due to obviousness. The court further rules that the patents-in-suit are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and that an award of attorneys fees is not warranted. It also finds the claims of the ‘772 patent are invalid for lack of written description, and other claims are not entitled to the filing date of earlier applications because do not meet the written description requirement.
Continue Reading...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.
Continue Reading...Infineon Technologies AG, et al. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, et al., Civ. No. 08-887-SLR-LPS, September 30, 2009.
Stark, M. J. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to additional patents is granted. Costs associated with the motion are denied.
Continue Reading...Finjan Software, LTD. v. Secure Computing Corporation, C.A. No. 06-369-GMS, August 18, 2009.
Sleet, C. J. All of defendants’ post-trial motions are denied, as well as plaintiff’s renewed motion for invalidity. However, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction and grants in part plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages and its motion to amend the judgment and for an accounting of sales.
Continue Reading...Trueposition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, Civ. No. 05-747-SLR, June 10 , 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s application for costs to compensate for the consequences of post-verdict shipments of infringing product is reduced from $981,000 to $500,000.
Continue Reading...Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Civ. No. 07-190-SLR, May 15 , 2009.
Robinson J. Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and remittitur is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest is granted.
Continue Reading...Trueposition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, Civ. No. 05-747-SLR, April 30, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for an accounting and entry of final judgment is granted. Plaintiff’s 60(b) motion for relief is granted. Defendant is required to remit additional infringement damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and punitive damages and fees and costs associated with these motions.
Continue Reading...Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials, LLC v. Honeywell International, Inc., C.A. No. 06-297-GMS, April 16, 2009.
Sleet, C.J. Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is granted but its request for attorneys’ fees and costs is denied.
Continue Reading...Parker-Hannifin Corporation, et al. v. Seiren Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 07-104-MPT, March 31, 2009.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and expenses based on bad faith claim and its request for additional discovery is denied.
Continue Reading...Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 04-876-GMS, January 6, 2009.
Sleet, C.J. Defendant’s JMOL motion and motion for a new trial on willful infringement are denied; plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is denied. Parties are ordered to meet and confer on royalty rate going forward; plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest and an accounting is granted but request for enhanced damages and attorney fees and expenses is denied.
Continue Reading...Microstrategy Incorporated v. Crystal Decisions, Inc., C. A. No. 03-1124-MPT, November 19, 2008.
Thynge, M. J. Magistrate grants plaintiff’s request for fees and costs in the amount of $2,249,387.22 less the charges related to overhead costs.
Continue Reading...Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Safety 1st, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-051 GMS (May 5, 2008).
Sleet, C.J. Plaintiff’s motion for contempt of Court is granted in part; its post-trial motions for entry of final judgment, enhanced damages, attorneys fees and prejudgment interest are granted in part. Defendants’ motions for JMOL or a new trial as to willfulness and damages are denied
Microstrategy Incorporated v. Crystal Decisions, Inc., C.A. No. 03-1124-MPT, March 25, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. The Magistrate granted defendant’s motion to rule that this was an “exceptional case” and granted in part its motion for costs and attorneys’ fees.
Continue Reading...Farnan, J. Following a bench trial ruling in favor of plaintiffs’ claims of infringement, the Court denies plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees finding that defendants’ conduct, while sometimes questionable, did not rise to the “exceptional” level.
Continue Reading...IMX, Inc. v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 03-1067-SLR, Jan. 10, 2007.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for JMOL and new trial was denied. Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages was granted. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction was denied with leave to supplement briefing.
Continue Reading...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.
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...
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.
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
