Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Dey Pharma., L.P., et al., Civil Action No.06-113-LPS, January 27, 2012.
Stark, J. Motion for reconsideration granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Sri International Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 04-1199-SLR, October 31, 2011.
Robinson, J. In limine and Daubert motions are decided with mixed results before damages trial.
Continue Reading...Belden Technologies Inc., et al. v. Superior Essex Communications LP, et al., Civ. No. 08-63-SLR, August 12, 2011.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL or for a new trial on validity is granted in part and denied in part and its motion for permanent injunction is denied. Defendants’ renewed motion for JMOL or for new trial on invalidity is also granted in part and denied in part. The parties’ remaining JMOL motions are denied as moot.
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...AstraZeneca LP, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C. A. No. 08-453-GMS, June 23, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Post-trial findings of fact and law of non-infringement of proposed ANDA product
Continue Reading...LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Au Optronics Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 06-726-LPS, December 29, 2010.
Stark, J. Third party Anvik’s motion for limited intervention to obtain copies of evidence is granted in part and denied in part.
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...Kenexa Brassring Inc. v. Taleo Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 07-521-SLR, November 18, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement is granted in part. Vurv products infringe all asserted claims, Taleo products infringe all but two claims of one patent-in suit, and all but one claim of the a second patent-in-suit.
Continue Reading...Symbol Technologies LLC v. Janam Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No.08-340-JJF, July 20, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion to preclude evidence of Plaintiff’s profits is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
Continue Reading...Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., Civ. No. 07-272-SLR, June 7, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence and argument on invalidity pertaining to plaintiff’s Trakker product is denied.
Continue Reading...Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Neutrogena Corporation, Civ. No. 09-642-SLR, June 7, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant's motion for reconsideration is granted. Defendant shall file a submission addressing only the additional evidence it seeks to present to rebut the presumption of consumer deception. Plaintiff may respond regarding disputes of the evidence submitted or positions represented.
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.
LG Display Co., LTD. v. Au Optronics Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.06-726-JJF, March 2, 2010.
Farnan, J. The Court considers certain evidentiary objections following a bench trial and overrules all but one of the parties’ objections.
Continue Reading...Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., Civ. No.03-27-SLR, January 28, 2010.
Robinson, J. The court rules on several pretrial evidentiary issues.
Continue Reading...St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., et al., Civ. Act. No. 03-241-JJF, November 19, 2009.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s Motion For New Trial On Damages Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, Or In The Alternative, Motion For Prejudgment And Post-Judgment Interest will be denied to the extent a new trial is sought and granted to the extent that prejudgment and post-judgment interest is sought. In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion For A New Trial On Infringement will be denied because the Court has not modified it claim construction. The Final Judgment Order in this case will be amended to reflect the Court's prejudgment and post-judgment interest rulings.
Continue Reading...Laboratory Skin Care, Inc. and Zahra Mansouri v. Limited Brands, Inc. and Bath and Body Works, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-601-JJF, October 14, 2009.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on invalidity is denied. Defendants’ motion for leave to supplement is granted and plaintiffs’ motion to preclude is granted. Further briefing is ordered with regard to defendants’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to §102(b).
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 06c-491-MPT, July 27, 2009.
Thynge, M.J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied as to non-infringement and is granted as to no willful infringement; defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding lack of written description is denied; plaintiff’s motion to strike materials produced after the close of discovery and inadmissible hearsay is granted in part, denied in part, and moot in part; defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity is denied; and plaintiff’s motion for leave to file sur-reply regarding defendants’ invalidity motion is moot.
Continue Reading...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...Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., v. Abbott Laboratories et al., No. 02-1512-SLR; Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., No. 03-120-SLR; In re Tricor Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-340-SLR, November 5, 2008.
Robinson, J. The Court provides pre-trial guidance as to when a party may use the deposition testimony from the opposing party’s expert who is not expected to testify at trial.
Continue Reading...Farnan J. Court rules on certain evidentiary issues raised by both parties during bench trial and denies all objections.
Continue Reading...
Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
