Motions for new trial and JMOL on damages denied after remand.

Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 97-550-SLR (Consolidated); Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al. C.A. No. 98-19-SLR, September 15, 2008.

Robinson, J.  Following decade-long litigation, the Court grants Cordis’ motion for entry of final judgment and denies BSC’s motion for new trial and Medtronic’s motion for JMOL on lost profit damages.

Continue Reading...

Damages remitted and enhanced 25% for willfulness; JMOL defenses waived

TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, C.A. No. 05-747-SLR, July 31, 2008.

Robinson, J.  Defendant’s motion for JMOL or a new trial is denied.  Damages awarded by jury of $45.3 million are remitted to $18.6 million.  Plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages due to willful infringement is granted in part.  Damages are enhanced by 25% to $23,250,000.  Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied.  Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is granted.  Prejudgment interest on $18.6 million is awarded, compounded quarterly at the prime rate.  Post-judgment interest on $18.6 million from 9/19/07 (the date of judgment) is awarded at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the calendar week preceding.

Continue Reading...

Court makes evidentiary rulings; willfulness and damages are bifurcated

Summary judgment in antitrust action is denied; jurisdictional and venue defenses are upheld

Howard Hess Dental, et al., v. Dentsply International, Inc., C.A. Nos. 99-255-SLR and 01-267, September 26, 2007.

Robinson, J.  Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.  Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue is granted.

Continue Reading...

Failure to mark results in dismissal; laches evidence to be presented to jury

Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., et al., v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., C.A. No. 05-608-MPT, July 24, 2007.

Thynge, M.J.  Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss counterclaim based on failure to mark is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss counterclaims based on laches is denied.  Evidence of laches is relevant to willfulness and can be presented to the jury.  A portion of the trial may be allocated to make a record for the Court on laches if there is additional evidence to be presented on laches.

Continue Reading...

Reconsideration of a permanent injunction was denied but damages will increase.

IMX, Inc. v. Lendingtree, LLC, No. 03-1067-SLR, Apr. 25, 2007.

Robinson, C.J. Motion for reconsideration of the denial of a permanent injunction based on newly identified evidence was granted in part.

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...

Damages expert's testimony was limited in part

Inline Connection Corp., et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., D. Del. No. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Jan. 16, 2007.

Thynge, J.  A motion in limine to limit expert testimony was granted in part.  A motion for summary judgment to preclude damages for non-infringing lines was denied.

Continue Reading...

Reconsideration of damages limitation was denied

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...

A few in limine motions granted before jury trial; most denied

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...

Court declines to reconsider summary judgment ruling for partial summary judgment ruling limiting damages

IMX, Inc. v. Lendingtree, LLC, No. 03-1067-SLR, Jan. 10, 2006.

Robinson, J.  Motion for reconsideration denied regarding prior summary judgment ruling granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment limiting damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 287(a).

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...