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
Continue Reading...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...Forest Labs., Inc. et al. v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., ,No. 03-891-JJF, Mar. 15, 2007.
Farnan, J. Defendants' motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement was granted. The Court reserved decision as to whether summary disposition of the exceptional case issue was appropriate.
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...
Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GMBH et al, v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al., No. 05-700-KAJ, July 6, 2006.
Jordan, J. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of prior ruling denying motion to strike willfulness allegations is granted and exceptional case discovery is stayed.
Philips Electronics N. Am. Corp. et al. v. Contec Corp. et al., No. 02-123-KAJ, Jan. 9, 2006.
Jordan, J. Motion for summary judgment on liability of indirect infringement was granted; motion for summary judgment of inducement of infringement was denied as moot. A direct infringement claim was dismissed at the consent of the patentee. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and failure to provide damages, as well as Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs, were denied.
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
