Plaintiff's fees and costs application is reduced from $981,000 to $500,000

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...

Jury award is reduced from $52.3 to $44.9 to comport with the evidence

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...

Post-verdict shipments lead to punitive damages and exceptional case finding

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...

Settlement agreement is deemed valid and enforceable

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...

Bid for defense fees fails in suit dropped after Markman hearing

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...

Jury verdict for willful infringement is upheld without enhanced damages

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...

Over 2 million in fees and expenses incurred in defending bad faith suit granted less overhead costs

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...

Court issues contempt order against defendant for failure to abide by injunction

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





Continue Reading...

Attorneys' fees awarded in exceptional case

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...

Court denies attorney fees in patent infringement case

Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al., v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 03-891-JJF, February 26, 2008.

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...

Willfulness claim was summarily dismissed in an ANDA case; decision on exceptional case was reserved

Forest Labs., Inc. et al. v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., ,No. 03-891-JJF, Mar. 15, 2007.


Farnan, J.   Defendants' motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement was granted.  The Court reserved decision as to whether summary disposition of the exceptional case issue was appropriate. Continue Reading...

JMOL and new trial were denied as the court awarded enhanced damages

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...

Prejudgment interest accrued up to date of pre-appeal judgment

Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 99-274-SLR, Mar. 14, 2006.

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.



Continue Reading...

Patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; no attorneys fees awarded

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...

Universal remote controls found to infringe

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. Continue Reading...