Wyeth Holdings Corporations, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., Civ. Action No. 09-955-LPS-CJB, February 3, 2012.
Burke, M. J. Report and recommendation denying motion to dismiss or strike counterclaim and affirmative defense of inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., LTD., et al., Civil Action No. 11-965-LPS, October 25, 2011 (redacted) Public Version Released Novemer 8, 2011.
Stark, J. Motion for TRO and preliminary injunction denied.
Continue Reading...SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 04-1199-SLR, October 4, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion to amend answer and counterclaim is denied.
Continue Reading...Softview LLC v. Apple Inc., and AT&T Mobility LLC, Civil Action No. 10-389-LPS, September 30, 2011.
Stark, J. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to assert claims against additional infringers is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss inequitable conduct defenses is granted.
Continue Reading...nCUBE Corporation (now Arris Group, Inc.) v. Seachange International, Inc. (redacted), C. A. No. 01-011-LPS, September 2, 2011.
Stark, J. After a hearing on whether this dispute is amenable to a contempt proceeding, the court reserves judgment on plaintiff’s motion for contempt to hold defendant in contempt of permanent injunction order and schedules a contempt hearing.
Continue Reading...Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials LLC, et al., Civ. No. 06-557a-SLR, September 13, 2011.
Robinson, J. Cross motions in limine to exclude certain characterizations of the patent-in suit made in satellite patent prosecutions are granted. The court resolves other pretrial issues and denies Plaintiff’s motions for reargument
Continue Reading...Linear Technology Corporation v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., C. A. No. 06-476-GMS, September 9, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Continue Reading...Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Laboratories, Civ. No. 08-126-SLR, August 23, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion for summary judgment regarding alleged anticompetitive conduct and motion for summary judgment regarding allegations of sham litigation are granted.
Continue Reading...CNH America LLC, et al. v. Kinze Manufacturing, Inc., C. A. No. 08-945-GMS, August 11, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Renewed motions for JMOL, new trial, and attorney fees are denied.
Continue Reading...S.O.I.TEC Silicon on Insulator Technologies, S.A. and Commissariat à L’Énergie Atomique v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., Civ. No. 08-292-SLR, July 13, 2011.
Robinson, J. Post-trial motions are either denied or 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...In Re: Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation, Civ. No. 09-2118-SLR, May 12, 2011.
Robinson, J. After bench trial, the courts issues claim constructions and finds that defendants infringe the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit, that the patents are not invalid for failure to disclose their best mode, and that the patents are invalid as obvious. The court further finds that the patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...Cephalon, Inc. and Cima Labs, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-724-SLR, Civ. No. 08-330SLR March 24, 2011.
Robinson, J. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs is entered on No. 09-724. Defendants’ motion to strike expert testimony is denied in part and denied in part as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ notice of subsequent authority is denied as moot. Defendants’ motion to vacate the 10/28/10 order staying launch of generic drug is denied. The court construes three disputed terms. Judgment in favor of defendants is entered in No. 08-330 in a separate opinion.
Continue Reading...Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 07-823-SLR, March 30, 2011.
Robinson, J. The court makes post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law and directs entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff as to noninfringement and in favor of defendants as to validity and enforceability.
Continue Reading...Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., Civ. No. 08-542-SLR, March 9, 2011.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s claim of unenforceability of the '974 patent on the basis of inequitable conduct is denied.
Continue Reading...Edwards Lifesciences AG, et al. v. Corevalue, Inc. and Medtronic Corevalue, LLC, C. A. No. 08-91-GMS, February 7, 2011.
Stark, C. J. Defendants’ Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Motion for a New Trial or Alternatively to Amend Judgment, Motion for Attorney Fees, Motion for Enhanced Damages, Motion to Strike, Motion to Supplement Court Record and Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Post Trial Motions are denied. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prejudgment and Post judgment Interest is granted. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction, Accounting and Related Relief is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Brigham and Women’s Hospital Inc., et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 08-464-HB, January 7, 2011.
Bartle, J. (by designation) Court finds patents-in-suit are valid and enjoins defendants from manufacturing and selling their generic cinacalcet hydrochloride tablets prior to the expiration of the patents.
Continue Reading...ICU Medical, Inc. v. Rymed Technologies, Inc., Civ. No. 07-468-LPS, November 23, 2010.
Stark, J. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or partial summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude expert testimony is granted. Defendant’s motion to exclude section 282 notice and references is denied. 8 in limine motions are additionally decided.
Continue Reading...Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., Civ. No.08-542-SLR, November 3, 2010.
Robinson, J. The court grants in part and denies in part six post trial motions.
Continue Reading...Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Hospira, Inc., C. A. No.07-721-GMS, September 27, 2010.
Sleet, C. J. The court makes post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows: (A) claims 2 and 10 of the '561 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness; (B) all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness; (C) the asserted claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; (D) the asserted claims are not invalid due to double patenting; (E) the defendants' proposed products infringe asserted claims 2, 5, and 10 of the '561 patent and claim 33 of the '512 patent; and (F) each of the parties Rule 52(c) motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., Civ. No.07-272B-SLR, September 14, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on infringement on the ‘678 patent is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for non-infringement of the Intermec patents is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of validity of the System patents is granted-in-part. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement and validity of the Terminal patents is granted-in part and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness of certain claims on the ‘678 and 499 patents is granted-in-part.
Continue Reading...Alcon, Inc. and Alcon Research, LTD. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civ. No.06-234-SLR, August 5, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment to enter permanent injunction is denied.
Continue Reading...Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civ. Nos.09-72-SLR, 09-232-SLR, July 26, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff's motion to amend its pleadings is denied in part and denied in part as moot; defendant’s motion to dismiss Teles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied as moot; SSBG is substituted for plaintiff pursuant to Rule 25(c); plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement is denied; defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is granted; trial on the validity of the '453 and '902 patents is stayed pending final judgment by the Federal Circuit on the pending reexaminations; defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '453 and '902 patents is denied without prejudice to renew should the stay be lifted; defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '431 patent is granted; SSBG's motion for partial summary judgment of no inequitable conduct is denied; and both parties' motions to exclude expert testimony are denied as moot.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon Com., Inc., et al., Civil Action No.06-491a-MPT, July 23, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction after trial is denied.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon Com., Inc., et al., Civil Action No.06-491-MPT, July 23, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. After trial on inequitable conduct and patent misuse, the court finds in favor of plaintiff.
Continue Reading...Bigband Networks, Inc. v. Imagine Communications, Inc., Civil Action No.07-351-JJF, July 20, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to amend its answer and counterclaims is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the amended inequitable conduct counterclaims is denied.
Continue Reading...The Research Foundation of State University of New York, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C. A. No. 09-184-GMS-LPS, June 28, 2010.
Stark, J. Defendant’s Motion For Leave To File An Amended Answer and Counterclaims is granted.
Continue Reading...Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-862a-LPS, June 24, 2010.
Stark, M. J. Defendant’s Motion For Leave To Amend Its Responsive Pleading To Add A Defense And Counterclaim Of Inequitable Conduct And To Amend Its False Marking Counterclaim is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...
Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp., Civ. No. 07-779-SLR, June 14, 2010.
Robinson, J. Judgment issues in favor of defendants after bench trial. Plaintiffs prevailed on claims of infringement, no lack of enablement, and no inequitable conduct. Defendants prevailed on their obviousness defense.
Continue Reading...McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Italia S.P.A. and Translogic Corporation, Civ. No.06-028-SLR, May 18, 2010.
Robinson, J. The Court adopts the Magistrate’s recommendations in part and overrules in part as follows:
(1) denies defendant’s motion to dismiss
for lack of standing and grants plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s lack of standing defense;
(2) denies defendant’s noninfringement motion;
(3) grants plaintiff’s motion re: no inequitable conduct;
(4) grants plaintiff’s motion re: validity and denies defendant’s invalidity motion;
(5) denies defendant’s motion re: no willfulness;
(6) denies plaintiff’s motion re: no patent misuse;
(7) grants plaintiff’s motion re: no unclean hands, waiver, laches and equitable estoppel and denies defendant’s re laches and estoppel;
(8) grants in part defendant’s motion re: failure to mark.
The court also adopts in part and overrules in part the recommended claim constructions, and denies defendant’s motion to reconsider the denial of its motion to exclude certain expert testimony.
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...Eurand, Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civ. No.08-889-SLR-MPT, April 13, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. The Court grants defendant’s request for limited discovery only.
Continue Reading...Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., Civ. No.08-542a-SLR, April 12, 2010(amended opinion).
Robinson, J. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of infringement of the '974 patent with respect to claims 1 and 8 is granted but denied as to claim 2; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of defendant’s '380 patent is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct and no invalidity with respect to the '905 and '434 patents is granted but is denied with respect to the '974 patent. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain expert testimony is denied as moot. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the '512 patent is granted but denied as to three other patents. Defendant’s invalidity motion is denied.
Continue Reading...Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corporations, et al., Civ. No.98-197-SLR, March 31, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendants' motion to withdraw or amend the enforceability judgment is denied.
Continue Reading...Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.08-464-SLR, March 31, 2010.
Bartle, C.J. Defendants’ motion for an order finding that plaintiffs have waived the attorney-client privilege is granted.
Continue Reading...Aerocrine AB and Aerocrine Inc. v. Apieron Inc., Civ. No.08-787-LPS, March 30, 2010.
Stark, M. J. Defendant’s motion to amend its answer is granted; plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings alleging inequitable conduct is denied.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Civil Action No.06-491-MPT, March 19, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. The Order to bifurcate remains in place and the Court adopts plaintiff’s proposed scheduling order on remaining issues.
Continue Reading...Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Neutrogena Corporation, Civ. No.09-268-SLR, March 15, 2010.
Robinson, J. The court finds Lanham Act and DTPA violations after a bench trial and enters judgment in favor of plaintiff and also judgment in favor of defendant on its counterclaims. The parties are directed to submit a proposed order for injunctive relief.
Continue Reading...Cancer Research Technology, et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., et al., Civ. No.07-457-SLR, January 26, 2010.
Robinson, J. After trial, the court makes findings of fact and conclusions of law. It finds in favor of the defendants on the defenses of prosecution laches and/or inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., Civil Action No.09-742-JJF, January 20, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to transfer is denied. The Court reserves decision on Plaintiff’s motion to enjoin defendant from proceeding with its later filed suit in the District of Columbia.
Continue Reading...Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., et al. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., Civil Action No. 05-608-MPT, January 15, 2010.
Thynge, M.J. Motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendant’s laches counterclaim is granted
Continue Reading...Webexchange Inc. v. Fedex Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 08-133-JJF, December 30, 2009.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion to bifurcate and for early trial on inequitable conduct is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file surreply is granted.
Continue Reading...Webexchange Inc. v. Dell Inc., C.A. No. 08-132-JJF, December 30, 2009.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion to bifurcate and for early trial on inequitable conduct is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file surreply is granted.
Continue Reading...Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 08-309-JJF-LPS, December 18, 2009.
Stark, M.J. Magistrate recommends granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to strike defenses and counterclaims of inequitable conduct and patent misuse.
Continue Reading...IGT v. Bally Gaming International, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 06-282-SLR, December 22, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is denied.
Continue Reading...ICU Medical, Inc. v. Rymed Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 07-468-JJF, December 16, 2009.
Farnan, J. Defendant's Motion To Modify Scheduling Order And For Leave To File Second Amended Answer and Counter-Plaintiff's Counterclaims is granted. Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To File Sur-Reply is also granted.
Continue Reading...Eurand, Inc., Cephalon, Inc. and Anesta AG v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 08-889-SLR-MPT; Eurand, Inc., Cephalon, Inc. and Anesta AG v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., C.A. No. 09-18-SLR-MPT, December 9, 2009.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s request for lab notebooks and other R&D documents relating to a product other that covered by the patent-in-suit is denied. Defendant’s request for disclosure of secondary considerations evidence is granted.
Continue Reading...McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Holding AG, et al., Civ. No. 06-28-LPS, October 30, 2009.
The Magistrate recommends denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Disputed terms are construed following a Markman Hearing. In addition recommendations are made on several competing motions for summary judgment. Finally, the parties’ competing motions to preclude expert testimony are denied.
Continue Reading...Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., Civ. No. 08-542-SLR, October 19, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motions to reconsider dismissal of Lanham Act claim and to amend the pleadings to add an inequitable conduct claim are denied.
Continue Reading...The Dutch Branch of Streamserve Development AB v. Exstream Software, LLC and Hewlett-Packard Co., Civ. No. 08-343-SLR, August 26, 2009.
Robinson, J. The Court determines that bifurcation of damages and willfulness for both discovery and trial is appropriate over plaintiff’s challenge.
Continue Reading...Laboratory Skin Care, Inc., et al. v. Limited Brands, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 06-601-JJF, August 17, 2009.
Farnan, J. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ motion for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of unenforceability is granted.
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...Purdue Pharma Products L.P., et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-255-KAJ, August 14, 2009.
Jordan, J. The Court entered its post-trial rulings in an ANDA case regarding a generic version of Ultram® ER.
Continue Reading...Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 98-197- SLR, August 10, 2009.
Robinson, J. Defendants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable.
Continue Reading...Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-782-JJF, July 1, 2009.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is also granted in part and denied in part. Defendants are granted leave to amend their defenses and counterclaims.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-491-MPT, June 30, 2009.
Thynge, M. J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendants’ prosecution laches defense is granted and defendants’ motion relating to this defense is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment concerning Amazon’s patent misuse defense is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on a marking issue is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendants’ § 288 defense is granted.
Continue Reading...St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 08-373-JJF-LPS, June 10 , 2009.
Stark, M. J. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend their Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims and Jury Demand to add defenses and counterclaims based on inequitable conduct and patent exhaustion and/or license is granted.
Continue Reading...Roquette Freres v. SPI Pharma, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 06-540-MPT, May 21 , 2009.
Thynge, M. J. Defendant’s motion to amend its answer to add a defense and counterclaim based on inequitable conduct is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply is also granted and the arguments set forth therein were considered by the Court.
Continue Reading...Wilco AG v. Packaging Technologies & Inspection LLC, Civ. No. 08-635-SLR, May 19 , 2009.
Robinson J. The Court grants plaintiff's motion to dismiss counterclaim of tortuous interference with business relations and denies motion to dismiss the counterclaim of inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...Symbol Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Aruba Networks, Inc., C.A. No. 07-519-JJF, March 30, 2009.
Farnan, J. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain portions of the defendant’s answer and counterclaim is granted in part.
Continue Reading...JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al. v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Civ. No. 08-189-SLR, March 4, 2009.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim is granted.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc., Civ. No. 06-491-MPT, February 18, 2009.
Thynge, M. J. Magistrate grants in part defendant’s motion to amend to add new inequitable conduct counterclaims.
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...Girafa.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al, Civ. No. 07-787-SLR, December 9, 2008 (Mem. Order).
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
Continue Reading...Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, Civ. No. 06-091-SLR, November 10, 2008.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss breach of contract claim is granted and the grant of summary judgment is vacated.
Continue Reading...Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF, November 7, 2008.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion for JMOL of noninfringement and invalidity is denied.
Continue Reading...Becton Dickinson and Company v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, C.A. No. 02-1694a-GMS, October 29, 2008.
Sleet, C.J. Plaintiff’s post-trial motions for an award for damages and prejudgment interest is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Company, C.A. No. 07-585-SLR, October 3, 2008.
Robinson, J. Court finds that plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving likelihood of success on the merits of irreparable harm and denies motion for preliminary injunction.
Continue Reading...Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Zippertubing (Japan), LTD., C.A. No. 06-751-MPT, September 24, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. Court finds defendant’s proposed amendments meet Rule 9(b) requirements and grants motion to amend to add inequitable conduct claims.
Continue Reading...Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 06-259-MPT, September 19, 2008, amended September 26, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. Ariad’s motion to dismiss declaratory judgment action for invalidity is granted. Motion to dismiss unenforceability defenses is denied. Ariad’s motion for partial summary judgment on inequitable conduct is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF, September 24, 2008.
Farnan, J. Court finds for plaintiff following bench trial on defendants’ claims of inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...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...Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., C.A. No. 03-477-SLR, July 31, 2008.
Robinson, J. The court rules for plaintiff on unfair competition and antitrust claims after bench trial.
Continue Reading...Venetec International, Inc., v. Nexus Medical, LLC, C.A. No. 07-57-MPT, March 28, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. Court denies plaintiff’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and grants defendant’s motion in part to amend its answer and counterclaim to expand on its unenforceability defense.
Robinson, J. Following a bench trial, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to show infringement and is not persuaded by defendant’s claims of invalidity for obviousness and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct.
Elan Corporation, PLC et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., C.A. No. 07-552-SLR, March 7, 2008.
Robinson, J. Court denies plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss counterclaims and affirmative defenses relating to claims of inequitable conduct with leave to renew at a later date.
Continue Reading...Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 06-259-MPT, January 31, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. The Court grants plaintiffs’ motion to amend and supplement their counterclaim for inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, C.A. No. 05-747-SLR, January 23, 2008.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion to register judgment is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to strike certain evidence referenced in post-trial briefing is granted. Defendant’s motion to reopen the record on equitable issues is denied.
Continue Reading...Robinson, J. Court denies plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Martek Biosciences Corporation v. Nutrinova Inc., et al., C.A. No. 03-896-GMS, October 30, 2007.
Sleet, C.J. The court denies defendant’s motions for JMOL of noninfringement of one patent and invalidity of a second patent . It granted in part JMOL of invalidity of a third patent. It further grants plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of infringement of the first patent and for a permanent injunction.
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...TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, C.A. No. 05-747-SLR, August 23, 2007.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity due to indefiniteness is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss five “standards-based” counterclaims is denied. Defendant can not present its fraud theory at trial because it cannot prove damages. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment relating to unfair competition is granted in part but denied as to fraud, equitable estoppel, implied license and promissory estoppel.
Sun Optics, Inc. v. FGX International, Inc., C.A. No. 07-137- SLR, August 2, 2007.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and defendant’s motion to dismiss are denied.
Continue Reading...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...Digene Corporation v. Ventana Medical Systems, et al., No. 01-752-MPT, May 9, 2007.
Thygne, J. Court denied preliminary injunction against defendant asserting a license defense notwithstanding decision by an arbitration panel that the assignment between co-defendants of rights violated terms of a cross licensing agreement.
Continue Reading...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...Robinson, C.J. The Court found no inequitable conduct after a bench trial.
Continue Reading...Affymetrix, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 04-901 JJF, Mar. 30, 2007.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment regarding claims of intentional interference with economic advantage and unfair business practices was denied. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity and inequitable conduct were denied. Claims of unfair business practices were bifurcated from the infringement trial.
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...IMX, Inc. v. LendingTree, LLC, D. Del. No. 03-1067-SLR, Jan. 10, 2007.
Robinson, J. After bench trial on inequitable conduct, the court found the patent was not unenforceable due to failure to disclose prior art.
Continue Reading...
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Oct. 30, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that the patent-in-suit is not unenforceable due to alleged inequitable conduct is denied; defendants’ motion for summary judgment of inequitable conduct is denied.
Continue Reading...
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Oct. 31, 2006.
Jordan, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is granted.
Continue Reading...
Sanofi-Aventis et al., v. Advancis Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 03-1083-SLR, Sept. 26, 2006.
Robinson, J. After a bench trial in May, 2005, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and ruled in favor of Aventis in this trademark infringement action. The court will order a permanent injunction and cancellation of defendant’s trademark.
Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Sicor Inc. et al., No. 04-833-KAJ, Aug. 17. 2006.
Jordan, J. The Court construed claims regarding patent disclosing a “sterile, pyrogen-free, ready-to-use solution of anthracycline glycoside” used for treating tumors. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for lack of written description were denied. The Court granted plaintiff’s motion regarding defendants’ anticipation defense, and denied defendants’ motion on anticipation. Plaintiff’s motion regarding defendants’ unclean hands defense was denied.
Novozymes A/S v. Genencor International, Inc. et al., No 05-160-KAJ, Aug. 24, 2006.
Jordan, J. Defendants were found to infringe an enforceable patent relating to alpha-amylase enzymes after bench trial. A bench trial on willfulness and damages will follow. The 64-page opinion also addresses claim construction.
Praxair, Inc. et al. v. ATMI, Inc. et al., No. 03-1158-SLR, Aug. 17, 2006
Robinson, J. Motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial, is denied. Defendant’s argument that no reasonable jury could have found that defendant’s products infringe was rejected. Expert’s unrebutted yet conclusory testimony failed to persuade the jury and does not meet the necessary clear and convincing standard. New trial unwarranted since excluded evidence resulted from trial by ambush tactics.
Continue Reading...
Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al., v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 03-891-JJF; July 13, 2006.
Farnan, J. After 5-day bench trial, court finds defendants have not established that the patents-in-suit are invalid as anticipated, obvious, or impermissibly broadened upon reissue, nor that a patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
Thales Airborne Systems S.A. et al. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp., No. 05-853-SLR, June 21, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to transfer is denied. A motion to enjoin a New Jersey suit with additional patents in dispute filed hours after the Delaware suit is granted with respect to patents already part of the Delaware action and denied with respect to patents first filed in New Jersey.
Commissariat A L'Energie Atomique v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 03-484-KAJ, Apr. 18, 2006.
Jordan, J. Redacted opinion regarding Defendants’ motion to disclose material designated as highly confidential pursuant to the protective order to defendants. The motion was granted.
Corning Incorporated, et al. v. SRU Biosystems, et al., No. 03-633-JJF, Mar. 7, 2006.
Farnan, J. No inequitable conduct found. SRU is permanently enjoined from engaging in infringing activity.
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...
Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
