Magistrate recommends denial of defendant's motion to dismiss -- again.

 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...

Infringement judgment in prior suit does not result in summary judgment

Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 08-779-SLR, July 21, 2009.

Robinson, J.  Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

Continue Reading...

Various counterclaims are dismissed with leave to amend with detail

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...

Relitigation of lost profits was precluded by prior ruling on related patents

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp., et al., C.A. No. 02-359-MPT, November 12, 2008.

Thynge, M.J.  Defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiff from relitigating lost profits based on issue preclusion is granted.  Defendant Universal’s motion to preclude lost profits based on double recovery, judicial estoppel and/or implied license is moot.  Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

Continue Reading...

Certain expert testimony is stricken where documents were not produced

Siemens Medical SolutionsUSA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., C.A. No. 07-190-SLR, August 20, 2008.

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.


Continue Reading...

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.

Continue Reading...

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...