Certain expert testimony is stricken where documents were not produced
Robinson, J. Motion to exclude certain expert testimony is granted. Motion to strike affirmative defense of estoppel is deferred.
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...Defendant is enjoined from marketing its DHA products
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.
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...Unfair competition claim is defeated in summary adjudication; other motions are denied
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.
No infringement in camera patent dispute
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...
Plaintiff's DOE claims barred by prosecution history estoppel
Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., No. 99-309 (GMS), Aug. 14, 2006.
Sleet, J. After en banc remand, and two day bench trial the court holds that prosecution history estoppel bars plaintiff from asserting the doctrine of equivalents.
Continue Reading...
Sleet, J. After en banc remand, and two day bench trial the court holds that prosecution history estoppel bars plaintiff from asserting the doctrine of equivalents.
Continue Reading...
