Claims are construed in communications patent
CIF Licensing, LLC, d/b/a/ GE Licensing v. Agere Systems, Inc. C.A. No. 07-170-JJF, July 10, 2008.
Farnan, J. The court construes a total of 14 claim terms from two patents
Claims are construed in communications patent
CIF Licensing, LLC, d/b/a/ GE Licensing v. Agere Systems, Inc. C.A. No. 07-170-JJF, July 10, 2008.
Farnan, J. The court construes a total of 14 claim terms from two patents
Claims are construed in communications patent
CIF Licensing, LLC, d/b/a/ GE Licensing v. Agere Systems, Inc. C.A. No. 07-170-JJF, July 10, 2008.
Farnan, J. The court construes a total of 14 claim terms from two patents
Patent claims held invalid due to nonstatutory double patenting
Farnan, J. After a bench trial, the Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court ruled that disputed claims were infringed, but that the claims at issue are invalid for nonstatutory double patenting.
Continue Reading...Court denies cross-motions for summary judgment on claims for breach of settlement agreement
Sleet, C.J. Prior settlement agreement precludes invalidity argument for different product.
No infringement, invalidity or inequitable conduct found after bench trial
Robinson, J. Following a bench trial, the Court finds that plaintiff failed to show infringement and is not persuaded by defendant’s claims of invalidity for obviousness and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...Motion to amend and to supplement an inequitable conduct counterclaim is granted over futility argument
Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 06-259-MPT, January 31, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. The Court grants plaintiffs’ motion to amend and supplement their counterclaim for inequitable conduct.
Continue Reading...Reconsideration of summary judgment ruling is denied
Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, C.A. No. 06-091-SLR, December 4, 2007.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment ruling is denied. Miscellaneous pre-trial rulings are made.
Continue Reading...Partial grant of Rexam's motions for summary judgment based on invalidity and non-infringement of beverage can patents
Thynge, J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of two patents is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Pfizer prevails in Lipitor battle
Pfizer Inc., et. al. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories, Limited et al., C.A. No. 07-138-JJF, November 29, 2007.
Farnan, J. Plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss in part declaratory judgment counterclaims and to dismiss and for partial summary judgment on the pleadings are granted.
Patentee prevails on anticipation and breach of contract claims
Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, C.A. No. 06-091-SLR, November 20, 2007.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment of breach of contract and no anticipation are granted. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no breach of contract, invalidity, and incorporation by reference are denied.
Summary judgment of invalidity denied in LCD case
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity based upon anticipation is denied.
Two claims are found to be anticipated by art considered by the examiner
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment that three claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated is granted as to two claims and denied as to the third.
Failure to disclose the best mode defense prevails in LCD case
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to disclose the best mode is granted.
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.
Summary judgment is denied where expert testimony conflicts
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., et al., v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., C.A. No. 05-608-MPT, October 5, 2007.
Thynge, M.J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement is denied.
KSR does not change existing law regarding presumption of validity
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF, September 20, 2007.
Farnan, J. The Court requested briefing on whether the statutory presumption of validity is weakened as a result of KSR v. Teleflex. It concluded that KSR does not alter the statutory presumption of validity.
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...Dueling attempts to preliminarily enjoin and to dismiss complaint both fail
Sun Optics, Inc. v. FGX International, Inc., C.A. No. 07-137- SLR, August 2, 2007.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and defendant’s motion to dismiss are denied.
Continue Reading...Patent ruled not enabled on remand
Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 02-581-JJF, July 19, 2007.
Farnan, J. On remand from the Federal Circuit to determine whether this patent-in-suit was enabled by prior art, the Court found that the patent was not enabled and therefore does not invalidate the patent on the grounds of anticipation.
Patents invalidated due to inequitable conduct due to nondisclosure
Praxair, Inc. et al., v. ATMI, Inc. et al., No. 03-1158-SLR, June 13, 2007.
Robinson, C.J. After a bench trial on inequitable conduct held on December 12, 2005, the Court concluded the prior art withheld was not cumulative and that the individuals accused of inequitable conduct were aware of that art. Intent to deceive was based on the high materiality of the art.
Continue Reading...Claim construction rehash resulted in non-infringement ruling in telecommunications case
Telecordia Technologies, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., Nos. 04-875-GMS, 04-876-GMS, May 1, 2007.
Sleet, J. Summary judgment of non-infringement was granted with respect to the '306 patent and denied as to a second patent. Plaintiff's motion that the '306 patent was not anticipated was granted in part. Plaintiff's motion that the '306 patent was not invalid due to lack of enablement was granted. Defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '306 patent for failure to disclose the best mode was denied.
Continue Reading...
Defendant's summary judgment motions were denied; unfair business practices claims were bifurcated.
Affymetrix, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 04-901 JJF, Mar. 30, 2007.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment regarding claims of intentional interference with economic advantage and unfair business practices was denied. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity and inequitable conduct were denied. Claims of unfair business practices were bifurcated from the infringement trial.
Continue Reading...Summary judgment of non-infringement in stent case was granted.
Robinson, C.J. Cordis’ renewed motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was granted. Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude evidence of testing by Cordis’ expert Dr. Sabatini and related testimony was denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of validity due to no anticipation was granted.
Continue Reading...JMOL and new trial were denied in stent case
Robinson, J. Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement and invalidity and motion for a new trial were denied.
Continue Reading...Defense tactics result in denial of JMOL and new trial motions
Praxair, Inc. et al. v. ATMI, Inc. et al., No. 03-1158-SLR, Aug. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions for JMOL and new trial are denied.
Continue Reading...Untimely prior art references were precluded due to lack of diligence
Bridgestone Sports Co. Ltd. v. Acushnet Co., No. 05-132-JJF, Feb. 15, 2007.
Farnan, J. A motion to preclude untimely disclosed prior art references was granted.
Continue Reading...An untimely expert report was limited
Thynge, J. A motion to preclude invalidity expert’s first report based on unreliable methods was discussed in separate opinion. A motion to dismiss a supplemental report was granted in part as untimely.
Continue Reading...JMOL and new trial were denied as the court awarded enhanced damages
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...Summary judgment on opposed non-invalidity arguments is refused
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the patent is not invalid as obvious is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Whether references qualify as prior art is left for trial
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that certain evidence cannot qualify as prior art is denied.
Continue Reading...
Court declines to rule patent was not anticipated.
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of no anticipation is denied.
Continue Reading...
Markman decision relating to a system for storing video images
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Oct. 26, 2006.
Jordan, J. This Markman decision addresses only those terms that appear to be dispositive of issues raised in pending motions.
Continue Reading...
Defendants prevail on invalidity arguments
SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc. et al., No. 04-1199-SLR, Oct. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of invalidity are granted. Plaintiff’s motion regarding no anticipation is denied as moot. Defendants’ motion for failure to disclose best mode is denied as moot.
Continue Reading...
A few in limine motions granted before jury trial; most denied
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., No. 04-1371–JJF Sept. 20, 2006.
Farnan, J. Court grants 3 of 19 motions in limine filed by defendants, and 1 1/2 out of 5 motions filed by plaintiff.
Pretrial rulings favor patentee after court adopts broader claim constructions
Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Sicor Inc. et al., No. 04-833-KAJ, Aug. 17. 2006.
Jordan, J. The Court construed claims regarding patent disclosing a “sterile, pyrogen-free, ready-to-use solution of anthracycline glycoside” used for treating tumors. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for lack of written description were denied. The Court granted plaintiff’s motion regarding defendants’ anticipation defense, and denied defendants’ motion on anticipation. Plaintiff’s motion regarding defendants’ unclean hands defense was denied.
Novozymes' patent was found to be enforceable and infringed
Novozymes A/S v. Genencor International, Inc. et al., No 05-160-KAJ, Aug. 24, 2006.
Jordan, J. Defendants were found to infringe an enforceable patent relating to alpha-amylase enzymes after bench trial. A bench trial on willfulness and damages will follow. The 64-page opinion also addresses claim construction.
Continue Reading...Jury verdict against ATMI stands and court denies JMOL and new trial application
Praxair, Inc. et al. v. ATMI, Inc. et al., No. 03-1158-SLR, Aug. 17, 2006
Robinson, J. Motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively for a new trial, is denied. Defendant’s argument that no reasonable jury could have found that defendant’s products infringe was rejected. Expert’s unrebutted yet conclusory testimony failed to persuade the jury and does not meet the necessary clear and convincing standard. New trial unwarranted since excluded evidence resulted from trial by ambush tactics.
Continue Reading...
Judgment against generic pharmaceutical company IVAX after bench trial
Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al., v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 03-891-JJF; July 13, 2006.
Farnan, J. After 5-day bench trial, court finds defendants have not established that the patents-in-suit are invalid as anticipated, obvious, or impermissibly broadened upon reissue, nor that a patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
Apparatus claims held not indefinite and free of method-of-use limitations
Toshiba Corp. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 03-1035-SLR, June 28, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity is denied.
New trial and JMOL on infringement and invalidity were denied
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. et al. v. Cordis Corp. et al., No. 03-283-SLR, June 15, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement and invalidity is denied. Defendants’ motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ reply brief is granted in part and denied in part. New arguments are stricken.
JMOL and new trial motions denied after verdict of infringement and nonobviousness following remand
Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., Cons. C.A. 97-550-SLR, May 16, 2006 (corrected).
Robinson, J. Medtronic’s motion for new trial on Cordis’ patent infringement claims and Medtronic’s invalidity counter-claims, and Medtronic’s motion for JMOL on infringement are denied.
Jury verdicts against both parties stand as JMOL is refused
Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al., No. 03-027-SLR, May 11, 2006.
Robinson, J. Juries found for plaintiff against defendants in separate trials. Defendants’ motions for JMOL are denied. Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement and invalidity of ‘021 patent is denied. BSC’s motion for reconsideration of the “without prejudice” aspect of order dismissing claims against one product is denied.
Continue Reading...Defendants avoid trial after prevailing on non-infringement and non-enablement motions
Monsanto Company et al. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., C.A. 04-305-SLR, May 10, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of two patents-in-suit, and non-enablement of the third patent were granted. Other motions denied as moot.
Continue Reading...Summary judgment of invalidity denied
Guidant Corp. et al. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. et al., No. 04-0067-SLR, Jan. 6, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion for summary judgment that reissued patent is invalid under “Recapture Rule” was denied.
Continue Reading...Defendant's summary judgment motions on invalidity denied; plaintiff's motion granted in part
Padcom, Inc. v. Netmotion Wireless, Inc., No. 03-983-SLR, Feb 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of noninvalidity is granted in part, denied in part. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on lack of written description and indefiniteness is denied.
Continue Reading...