Flash Seats, LLC v. Paciolan, Inc., Civ. No. 07-575-LPS, September 28, 2011.
Stark, J. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is denied; plaintiff’s leave motion is granted; defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to (i) the non-infringing use of defendant’s accused system, and (ii) the invalidity of 5 claims as indefinite.
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...Internet Media Corporation v. Hearst Newspapers, LLC, Civ. No. 10-690-SLR, June 28, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.
Continue Reading...S.O.I. Tec Silicon On Insulator Technologies, S.A. and Commisseriat à L’Énergie Atomique v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., Civ. No.08-292-SLR, October 13, 2010.
Robinson, J. The court rules on 10 summary judgment motions and expert issues.
Continue Reading...Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Hospira, Inc., C. A. No.07-721-GMS, September 27, 2010.
Sleet, C. J. The court makes post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows: (A) claims 2 and 10 of the '561 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness; (B) all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness; (C) the asserted claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; (D) the asserted claims are not invalid due to double patenting; (E) the defendants' proposed products infringe asserted claims 2, 5, and 10 of the '561 patent and claim 33 of the '512 patent; and (F) each of the parties Rule 52(c) motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., Civ. No.07-272B-SLR, September 14, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on infringement on the ‘678 patent is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for non-infringement of the Intermec patents is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of validity of the System patents is granted-in-part. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement and validity of the Terminal patents is granted-in part and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness of certain claims on the ‘678 and 499 patents is granted-in-part.
Continue Reading...Girafa.com, Inc. v. Smartdevil Inc., Civ. No.07-787-SLR, August 4, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to set aside the entry of default in appearance is granted, and plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment is denied conditionally.
Continue Reading...The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.05-737b-JJF, July 30, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity is denied; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that patent claims are not invalid for lack of written description, and for partial summary judgment based on defendants’ written description defense are denied.
Continue Reading...The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.05-737a-JJF, July 30, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motions for JMOL on invalidity, no entitlement to lost profits, non-infringement, and for a new trial are denied.
Continue Reading...Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civ. Nos.09-72-SLR, 09-232-SLR, July 26, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff's motion to amend its pleadings is denied in part and denied in part as moot; defendant’s motion to dismiss Teles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied as moot; SSBG is substituted for plaintiff pursuant to Rule 25(c); plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement is denied; defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is granted; trial on the validity of the '453 and '902 patents is stayed pending final judgment by the Federal Circuit on the pending reexaminations; defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '453 and '902 patents is denied without prejudice to renew should the stay be lifted; defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '431 patent is granted; SSBG's motion for partial summary judgment of no inequitable conduct is denied; and both parties' motions to exclude expert testimony are denied as moot.
Continue Reading...Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp., Civ. No. 07-779-SLR, June 14, 2010.
Robinson, J. Judgment issues in favor of defendants after bench trial. Plaintiffs prevailed on claims of infringement, no lack of enablement, and no inequitable conduct. Defendants prevailed on their obviousness defense.
Continue Reading...Santarus Inc., et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., C. A. No.07-551-GMS, April 14, 2010.
Sleet, C. J. The court enters judgment in favor of defendant after a bench trial on the issue of invalidity due to obviousness. The court further rules that the patents-in-suit are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and that an award of attorneys fees is not warranted. It also finds the claims of the ‘772 patent are invalid for lack of written description, and other claims are not entitled to the filing date of earlier applications because do not meet the written description requirement.
Continue Reading...Accenture Global Services GMBH, et al. v. Guidewire Software, Inc., Civ. No.07-826-SLR, March 5, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness, on-sale bar, anticipation or obviousness are denied. Defendant’s motion that the trade secret misappropriation claim is barred by the statute of limitations is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is denied without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s on-sale bar arguments and related documents not identified in invalidity contentions is denied.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC, Civil Action No.06-491-MPT, February 22, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial is granted in part, denied in part, and dismissed as moot in part.
Continue Reading...LG Display Co. Ltd. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., C.A. Nos.06-726-JJF, 07-357-JJF, February 16, 2010.
Farnan, J. Following Phase I of a bifurcated bench trial, the court finds that LGD literally infringes the asserted claim in the patents-in-suit and that the patents have not been proven to be invalid.
Continue Reading...Girafa.com, Inc. v. IAC Search & Media, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 07-787-SLR, September 25, 2009.
Robinson, J. The Court amends earlier Markman decision following further review of the disputed terms.
Continue Reading...Girafa.com, Inc. v. IAC Search & Media, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 07-787-SLR, September 15, 2009.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on obviousness is denied. A non-infringement motion based upon not supplying browser required by claims similarly fails.
Continue Reading...Fujinon Corporation v. Motorola, Inc., Civ. No. 07-533-GMS-LPS, September 11, 2009.
Stark, M.J. The Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation regarding claim construction after completion of briefing on March 3, 2009 and a Markman hearing on April 6, 2009.
Continue Reading...The Dow Chemical Company v. NOVA Chemicals Corporation and NOVA Chemicals, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-737-JJF, June 25, 2009.
Farnan, J. The Court construes five of six disputed terms in a 42-page opinion.
Continue Reading...Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Zippertubing (Japan), LTD., C.A. No. 06-751-MPT, November 18, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. The Court issued claim construction rulings for nine terms from three patents.
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
