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...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...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.
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.
Continue Reading...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:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
