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
