St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Research In Motion LTD., et al., Civil Action No. 08-371-JJF-LPS, June 10 , 2009.
Stark, M. J. Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint and Defendant’s contested Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Counterclaims are granted.
Continue Reading...Trueposition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, Civ. No. 05-747-SLR, June 10 , 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s application for costs to compensate for the consequences of post-verdict shipments of infringing product is reduced from $981,000 to $500,000.
Continue Reading...St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Palm, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 06-404-JJF-LPS, June 10 , 2009.
Stark, M. J. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is granted.
Continue Reading...St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. LTD., et al., Civil Action No. 04-1436-JJF-LPS, June 10 , 2009.
Stark, M. J. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is granted.
Continue Reading...Trueposition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, Civ. No. 05-747-SLR, April 30, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for an accounting and entry of final judgment is granted. Plaintiff’s 60(b) motion for relief is granted. Defendant is required to remit additional infringement damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and punitive damages and fees and costs associated with these motions.
Continue Reading...Parker-Hannifin Corporation, et al. v. Seiren Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 07-104-MPT, March 31, 2009.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and expenses based on bad faith claim and its request for additional discovery is denied.
Continue Reading...S.O.I. TEC Silicon On Insulator Technologies, S.A., et al. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., Civ. No. 08-292-SLR, February 20, 2009.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or alternatively for a more definite statement, is denied.
Continue Reading...Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Civ. No. 00-792-SLR, January 9, 2009.
Robinson, J. Court declares patents-in-suit unenforceable following bench trial on issues of alleged spoliation of evidence and unclean hands by defendant.
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...Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International,Inc. et al., Civ. No. 04-1371-JJF, December 12, 2008.
Farnan, J. Defendant's motion for a new trial on all issues in light of Seagate is granted to the extent it seeks a new trial on willfulness and denied to the extent it seeks a new trial on all issues.
Continue Reading...Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp., et al., C.A. No. 02-359-MPT, November 12, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment regarding no willful infringement is granted.
Continue Reading...Sepracor Inc. v. Dey, L.P. and Dey, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 06-113-JJF, September 26, 2008.
Farnan, J. Court grants defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s willfulness allegations but preserves plaintiff’s exceptional case claim.
Continue Reading...McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Holding AG, et al., C.A. No. 06-28-SLR-LPS, August 29, 2008.
Stark, M.J. Following submission of additional documentation, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion to reconsider its earlier recommendation of dismissal for lack of standing. Motions by both sides to amend pleadings are granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss willfulness claim in light of Seagate is denied.
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...Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Safety 1st, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-051 GMS (May 5, 2008).
Sleet, C.J. Plaintiff’s motion for contempt of Court is granted in part; its post-trial motions for entry of final judgment, enhanced damages, attorneys fees and prejudgment interest are granted in part. Defendants’ motions for JMOL or a new trial as to willfulness and damages are denied
Microstrategy Incorporated v. Crystal Decisions, Inc., C.A. No. 03-1124-MPT, March 25, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. The Magistrate granted defendant’s motion to rule that this was an “exceptional case” and granted in part its motion for costs and attorneys’ fees.
Continue Reading...Farnan, J. Following a bench trial ruling in favor of plaintiffs’ claims of infringement, the Court denies plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees finding that defendants’ conduct, while sometimes questionable, did not rise to the “exceptional” level.
Continue Reading...Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, C.A. No. 06-091-SLR, November 30, 2007.
Robinson, J. The court makes evidentiary rulings on issues raised at the pretrial conference.
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.
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, 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...Affinion Net Patents, Inc. v. Maritz, Inc., No. 04-360-JJF, July 28, 2006.
Farnan, J. Patentee’s motion to compel two claims charts where privilege was waived due to advice-of-counsel defense was denied.
Continue Reading...
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, July 17, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of privileged documents denied.
Continue Reading...
IMX, Inc. v. Lendingtree, LLC, No. 03-1067-SLR; Jan. 6, 2006.
Robinson, J: Pretrial conference request to limit plaintiff from arguing inference based upon the opinion of counsel, which addressed invalidity but not infringement was granted.
The Federal Circuit made it clear in Knorr-Bremse that no adverse inference flows from the failure to obtain an exculpatory opinion of counsel. However, evidence that the opinion of counsel addressed invalidity but not infringement may be considered by the trier of fact in assessing willful infringement taking into account the totality of the circumstances. No inference may be drawn to suggest that such an opinion, had it been acquired, would have been unfavorable to defendant.
Continue Reading...
Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
