LadaTech, LLC v. Illumina, Inc. and Solexa, Inc., Civ. No.09-627a-SLR, January 24, 2012.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity and expiration is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no anticipation by certain references is granted. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Dey Pharma., L.P., et al., Civil Action No.06-113-LPS, January 18, 2012.
Stark. J. Court rules that the host document incorporates by reference the practical utility of compounds described in a second patent; thus material will be considered together as a single reference for purposes of anticipation.
Continue Reading...Grape Technology Group, Inc. and KGB, Inc. v. Jingle Networks, Inc., Civ. A. No. 08-408-GMS, January 9, 2012.
Sleet, C. J. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is denied. Defendant’s motion for JMOL of invalidity is denied. Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied.
Continue Reading...Laboratory Skin Care, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 06-601-LPS, January 3, 2012.
Stark, J. Form of final judgment will be entered by a separate document and bill of costs stricken without prejudice.
Continue Reading...Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc., et al. v. TPG Rewards, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-022-MPT, December 22, 2011.
Thynge, M. J. Motion to sever, dismiss, bifurcate, or transfer counterclaims is denied.
Continue Reading...
Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp., Civ. No. 07-779-SLR, December 20, 2011.
Robinson, J. The court issues findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Continue Reading...Intermec Technologies v. Palm, Inc., Civ. No. 07-272-SLR, December 19, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion for reconsideration is denied.
Continue Reading...Apeldyn Corporation v. Au Optronics Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 08-568b-SLR, November 15, 2011.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s summary judgment of invalidity is denied. Defendant’s summary judgment with respect to inducement is granted, the motion is denied in all other respects. Another defendant’s motions for summary judgment of no inducement and noninfringement are granted.
Continue Reading...Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne (French Corp.) and F2C2 Systems S.A.S. (French Corp.) v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc. (Delaware Corp.) Broetje-Automation GMBH (German Corp.) (unsealed), Civil Action No. 09-CV-598-LPS, October 4, 2011.
Stark, J. Summary judgment of invalidity for failure to disclose the best mode of practicing the invention is granted. Motion to strike best mode defense as untimely is denied.
Continue Reading...Asahi Glass Co., LTD., et al. v. Guardian Industries Corp., Civ. No. 09-515a-SLR, September 26, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion to exclude expert testimony will be addressed at the pretrial conference.
Continue Reading...Asahi Glass Co., LTD., et al. v. Guardian Industries Corp., Civ. No. 09-515-SLR, September 26, 2011.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement was granted as to certain claims. Defendant’s non-infringement motion was granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity was denied. Its motion for leave to file supplemental briefing in support of summary judgment was denied.
Continue Reading...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...Intermac Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., Civ. No. 07-272-SLR, September 15, 2011.
Robinson, J. Palm’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity and infringement is granted-in-part with respect to no invalidity, and otherwise denied. Intermec’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity is granted-in-part with respect to no infringement of certain claims, and otherwise denied.
Continue Reading...Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-333-SLR, September 8, 2011.
Robinson, J. Findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Continue Reading...Linear Technology Corporation v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., C. A. No. 06-476-GMS, September 9, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Continue Reading...Laboratory Skin Care, Inc. and Zahra Mansouri v. Limited Brands, Inc. and Bath And Body Works, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-601-LPS, September 8, 2011.
Stark, J. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or for new trial is denied.
Continue Reading...The Research Foundation of State University of New York, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civ. No. 09-184-LPS, August 26, 2011.
Stark, J. Plaintiff proved infringement of one of the patents-in-suit by defendant’s generic version of Oracea®. The other four patents-at-issue were found not infringed, and two were found invalid.
Continue Reading...Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials LLC, et al., Civ. No. 06-557-SLR, August 26, 2011.
Robinson, J. Renewed motion for summary judgment of invalidity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) is denied, and related motion to leave to file is denied as moot. Motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement is granted. Motion for leave to file motion for summary judgment of invalidity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is denied.
Continue Reading...Arcelormittal France, et al. v. AK Steel Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 10-050-SLR, August 25, 2011.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL new trial is denied. Defendant’s motion for JMOL of noninfringement is denied as moot.
Continue Reading...Ethypharm S.A. France v. Abbott Laboratories, Civ. No. 08-126-SLR, August 23, 2011.
Robinson, J. Motion for summary judgment regarding alleged anticompetitive conduct and motion for summary judgment regarding allegations of sham litigation are granted.
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...Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 08-335-GMS, July 28, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Continue Reading...Stored Value Solutions, Inc. (“n/k/a”) Ceridian Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activiation Technologies, Inc., et al., C. A. No. 09-495-KAJ (designated), July 1, 2011.
Jordan, J. (designated) Declaratory plaintiff’s motion on invalidity due to anticipation and obviousness is granted in part and its motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity due to lack of written description is granted. Declaratory defendant’s motions for summary judgment of validity and motion to exclude expert testimony are denied.
Continue Reading...LG Electronics U.S.A., et al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al., C. A. No. 08-234-GMS, July 1, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Post-trial motions granted in part and denied in part.
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...Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Sonic Innovations, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 05-422-GMS, June 7, 2011.
Sleet, C. J. Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and invalidity and for a new trial granted in part and denied in part. The jury’s finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was reversed as to two claims of one of the patents-in-suit due to prosecution history estoppel. The jury’s finding of validity and infringement as to the other patent-in-suit was preserved. The defendants’ request for a new trial on the issues of infringement and invalidity was denied. Plaintiff’s motion for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest was granted. All other post-trial motions were denied.
Continue Reading...Accenture Global Services, GmbH and Accenture, LLP v. Guidewire Software, Inc., Civ. No. 07-826-SLR, May 31, 2011.
Robinson, J. Patents are held invalid as directed to abstract ideas; motion for clarification, reargument, and/or certification is granted as to clarification and denied in all other respects; and motion to strike portions of reply brief is denied as moot.
Continue Reading...Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc., et al. v. TPG Rewards, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-cv-022-SLR-MPT, May 24, 2011.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss was converted into a motion for summary judgment and a finding in-part of non-infringement was recommended.
Continue Reading...Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Lupin Limited, et al., C.A. No. 09-152-LPS (D. Del. May 19, 2011)
Stark. J. The court granted defendants’ motion for leave to file surreply brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to exclude expert evidence and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of no invalidity for double patenting. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defenses not disclosed in the defendants’ interrogatory responses and not contained in defendants’ Paragragh IV notice letter, defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting; and plaintiffs’ request to supplement its motion to preclude expert evidence.
Continue Reading...Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, Civ. No. 06-091-SLR, April 21, 2011.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL of no anticipation and no obviousness or for a new trial is denied; and defendant’s motion to amend the judgment is granted to enforce prior stipulation.
Continue Reading...CIMA Labs Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C. A. No. 10-625-LPS, April 18, 2011.
Stark. J. Defendant’s motion to stay the lawsuit pending resolution of two reexamination proceedings is GRANTED.
Continue Reading...Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Cordis Corporation, Civ. No. 10-315-SLR, April 13, 2011.
Robinson. J. Defendant’s motion to stay trial on damages and willfulness pending reexamination is denied; motion to submit supplemental brief in support of motion to stay is denied as moot; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is granted; defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the date of the hypothetical negotiation is denied; summary judgment is granted sua sponte in favor of plaintiff with respect to the date of hypothetical negotiation; defendant’s motion to exclude expert from relying on outcome of prior case in reasonable royalty analysis is denied; plaintiff’s motion to preclude damages testimony based on incorrect hypothetical negotiation dates is granted.
Continue Reading...Cephalon, Inc. and Cima Labs, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-724-SLR, Civ. No. 08-330SLR March 24, 2011.
Robinson, J. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs is entered on No. 09-724. Defendants’ motion to strike expert testimony is denied in part and denied in part as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ notice of subsequent authority is denied as moot. Defendants’ motion to vacate the 10/28/10 order staying launch of generic drug is denied. The court construes three disputed terms. Judgment in favor of defendants is entered in No. 08-330 in a separate opinion.
Continue Reading...Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 07-823-SLR, March 30, 2011.
Robinson, J. The court makes post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law and directs entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff as to noninfringement and in favor of defendants as to validity and enforceability.
Continue Reading...Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-862-LPS, March 14, 2011.
Stark, J. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity based on anticipation and on the on-sale bar are denied.
Continue Reading...Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-862a-LPS, March 14, 2011. (D.I. 628, D.I. 629)
Stark, J. Defendant’s renewed motion for JMOL of no direct infringement is denied and its additional motions for JMOL and for a new trial are denied. Plaintiff’s motion for JMOL or a new trial is denied.
Continue Reading...Cephalon, Inc. and Cima Labs, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, et al., Civ. No. 08-330-SLR, March 11, 2011.
Robinson, J. Court issues post trial opinion finding against plaintiffs on infringement and in favor of defendants finding that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid for lack of enablement.
Continue Reading...Automated Transactions LLC v. IYG Holding Company, et al., Civ. No. 06-043-SLR, March 9, 2011.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is granted and its motion for summary judgment of invalidity is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of validity is granted in part and denied in part and their motion for summary judgment of infringement is denied.
Continue Reading...Magsil Corp., et al. v. Seagate Technology, et al., Civil Action No. 08-940-HB, February 16, 2011.
Bartle C. J. (by designation) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on invalidity for lack of enablement is granted.
Continue Reading...Tyco Healthcare Group, LP v. C.R. Bard, Inc., and Davol, Inc., Civ. No. 09-264-SLR, January 20, 2011.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate false marking claims is granted in part and denied in part; plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of expert report is denied; defendants’ motion to amend disputed claim chart is denied as moot; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for obviousness-type double patenting is granted; defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding mismarking is granted – intent and damages to be tried to the court following jury trial; defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to invalidity due to inadequate written description is denied as moot; defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is granted in part and denied in part; plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve supplemental expert report is denied.
Continue Reading...Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C. A. No. 04-1371-LPS, January 18, 2011.
Stark, J. Defendant’s post-trial motion to amend findings of fact is denied; plaintiff’s motion to declare case exceptional and award attorneys’ fees and treble damages is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Autocell Laboratories, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., Civ. No. 08-760-SLR, January 5, 2011.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is denied. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity are denied.
Continue Reading...Brigham and Women’s Hospital Inc., et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 08-464-HB, January 7, 2011.
Bartle, J. (by designation) Court finds patents-in-suit are valid and enjoins defendants from manufacturing and selling their generic cinacalcet hydrochloride tablets prior to the expiration of the patents.
Continue Reading...Laboratory Skin Care, Inc. and Zahra Mansouri v. Limited Brands, Inc. and Bath And Body Works, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-601-LPS, December 6, 2010.
Stark, J. Plaintiff’s motion to preclude is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to file a surreply is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment under § 102(b) is denied. Remaining portions of defendants’ invalidity motion are denied. Defendants’ motion to bifurcate liability from damages and willfulness is granted.
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...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...Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., C. A. No.08-335-GMS-SLR, November 5, 2010. (Consolidated)
Sleet, C.J. Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding the critical date[s] for determining prior art for the purpose of defendant’s obvious type double patenting defense is denied. Defendant’s motion in limine on the same topic is granted.
Continue Reading...Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp., Civ. No.07-779-SLR, November 3, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or reconsideration of judgment is dismissed without prejudice to renew and the record is opened for further evidence of a basic principle of science.
Continue Reading...Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., Civ. No.08-542-SLR, November 3, 2010.
Robinson, J. The court grants in part and denies in part six post trial motions.
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...Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Technologies, Inc., C. A. No.09-495-LPS, September 27, 2010.
Stark, J. Defendant’s motion to strike the rebuttal report of plaintiff’s
invalidity expert is denied.
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...Belden Technologies Inc., et al. v. Superior Essex Communications LP, et al., Civ. No.08-63a-SLR, August 24, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity for anticipation is granted as to one patent and denied as to the remaining patents. Plaintiff’s infringement motion is granted in part. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness is granted with respect to one patent and denied as to others. Defendant’s motion for noninfringement is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s motion for failure to mark is granted with respect to 6 patents and denied as to a seventh patent. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement is denied without prejudice to renew.
Continue Reading...CIF Licensing, LLC, d/b/a GE Licensing v. Agere Systems, Inc., Civil Action No.07-170-JJF, July 30, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendant's JMOL of no direct infringement on all claims is denied; defendant's JMOL of no indirect infringement of the ‘776 patent is granted; defendant's JMOL of no infringement under a theory of component liability is granted; defendant's JMOL of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is denied as moot; plaintiff's JMOL that the ‘054 patent is infringed and that it is not invalid is denied in part and granted in part. Plaintiff's motion is denied with regard to indirect infringement, and granted with regard to invalidity. Plaintiff's JMOLs that the ‘758, ‘776 and the ‘641 patents are infringed and that they are not invalid 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...Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C. A. No.04-1371-JJF, July 22, 2010.
Farnan, J. After trial, the court finds defendant willfully infringed plaintiff’s patents.
Continue Reading...In Re: Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, MDL No. 08-1949-JJF, June 29, 2010.
Farnan, J. The Court concludes that Apotex may be held liable for infringement as a submitter of an ANDA. Defendants' Motion To Dismiss AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP For Lack of Standing is granted. Judgment will be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on the issues of invalidity and unenforceability of the patent-in-suit.
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...In Re: Alfuzosin Hydrochloride Patent Litigation, MDL Docket No. 08-md-1941-GMS, May 14, 2010.
Sleet, C. J. After trial the court finds in favor of the patentee that: (1) the '491 patent is not invalid; and (2) an award for attorneys' fees and costs is not warranted in this case.
Continue Reading...The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada), et al., Civil Action No.05-737-JJF, May 20, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and/or invalidity is denied. The parties agree that portions of the invalidity argument are moot due to claim construction, and are therefore denied as moot. Defendants’ motion to strike untimely expert declarations is denied.
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 and 07-357-JJF April 30, 2010.
Farnan, J. CMO’s action is stayed; its motion for leave to file a response to post-trial briefs is denied. Plaintiff failed to prove defendant infringes plaintiff’s patents-in-suit. Defendant failed to prove plaintiffs’ patents are invalid. Final judgment is withheld until a damages opinion issues.
Continue Reading...IGT v. Bally Gaming International, Inc., et al., Civ. No.06-282-SLR, April 28, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to dismiss antitrust counterclaims is granted without prejudice.
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...Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., Civ. No.08-542a-SLR, April 12, 2010(amended opinion).
Robinson, J. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of infringement of the '974 patent with respect to claims 1 and 8 is granted but denied as to claim 2; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of defendant’s '380 patent is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct and no invalidity with respect to the '905 and '434 patents is granted but is denied with respect to the '974 patent. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike certain expert testimony is denied as moot. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the '512 patent is granted but denied as to three other patents. Defendant’s invalidity motion is denied.
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...Inline Connection Corporation, et al. v. Earthlink, Inc., C. A. No.02-272-MPT; C.A. No. 02-477-MPT, February 5, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to invalidity is granted but is denied as to noninfringement. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is also denied.
Continue Reading...
Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., et al., Civ. No.07-333-SLR; Civ. No. 07-348-SLR; Civ. No. 07-409-SLR; Civ. No. 07-765-SLR, January 20, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity under §112 is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity under § 103 are denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is also denied.
Continue Reading...Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Nikon Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 04-1337-JJF, December 4, 2009.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity is granted.
Continue Reading...McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Holding AG, et al., Civ. No. 06-28-LPS, October 30, 2009.
The Magistrate recommends denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Disputed terms are construed following a Markman Hearing. In addition recommendations are made on several competing motions for summary judgment. Finally, the parties’ competing motions to preclude expert testimony are denied.
Continue Reading...Linear Technology Corporation v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 06-476-GMS, November 12, 2009.
Sleet, C.J. The Court denies defendant’s post-trial motions that the patents-in-suit are obvious, or alternatively for a new trial.
Continue Reading...In re: Brimonidine Patent Litigation, MDL Docket No. 07-md-1866-GMS, October 23, 2009.
Sleet, C. J. The Court finds that the defendants' proposed generic products infringe the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit; (B) the patents-in-suit are not invalid; (C) the patents-in-suit are not unenforceable; and (D) an award for attorneys' fees and costs is not warranted in this case. The Court also grants the plaintiff's Rule 52(c) motion, and denies defendant’s Rule 52(c) motion.
Continue Reading...Alcon, Inc. And Alcon Research, LTD. v., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civ. No. 06-234-SLR, October 19, 2009.
Robinson, J. The Court finds in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on infringement and validity following bench trial.
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...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...Eurand Inc., Cephalon Inc., and Anesta AG v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Civ. No. 08-889-SLR, October 1, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiffs’ motion to sever and stay discovery on antitrust and patent misuse claims is granted.
Continue Reading...Sepracor Inc. v. Dey, L.P. and Dey, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-113- JJF, September 24, 2009.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on invalidity is granted in part. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no anticipation is denied.
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...SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 04-1199-SLR, August 20, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for post-trial relief is denied. ISS’s motion for JMOL is granted in part and denied in part. Symantec’s motion for JMOL with respect to non-infringement by SGS and Manager Products is granted. Symantec’s motion for a new trial or to amend judgment is denied.
Continue Reading...Finjan Software, LTD. v. Secure Computing Corporation, C.A. No. 06-369-GMS, August 18, 2009.
Sleet, C. J. All of defendants’ post-trial motions are denied, as well as plaintiff’s renewed motion for invalidity. However, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction and grants in part plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages and its motion to amend the judgment and for an accounting of sales.
Continue Reading...Purdue Pharma Products L.P., et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-255-KAJ, August 14, 2009.
Jordan, J. The Court entered its post-trial rulings in an ANDA case regarding a generic version of Ultram® ER.
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...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-491a-MPT, June 30, 2009.
Thynge, M. J. Defendant’s motion to strike second declaration by an inventor/expert is moot. The second declaration will not be considered for purposes of summary judgment.
Continue Reading...Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-782-JJF, July 1, 2009.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is also granted in part and denied in part. Defendants are granted leave to amend their defenses and counterclaims.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-491-MPT, June 30, 2009.
Thynge, M. J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendants’ prosecution laches defense is granted and defendants’ motion relating to this defense is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment concerning Amazon’s patent misuse defense is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on a marking issue is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendants’ § 288 defense is granted.
Continue Reading...IGT v. Bally Gaming International, Inc, et al., Civ. No. 06-282-SLR, April 28, 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment of infringement is granted in part and denied in part; defendants' motion for summary judgment of noninfringement is also granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of validity is granted. Defendants' motions for summary judgment of invalidity are denied. Plaintiff’s motion that defendants have no valid license defense is granted in part and denied in part as moot. Defendants' motion that it has a valid license defense is denied as moot.
Continue Reading...Alza Corporation and McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 05-642-JJF, March 30, 2009.
Farnan J. Defendants' declaratory judgment counterclaims pertaining to one of the patents are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike Portions of Defendants' Post-Trial Findings of Fact is granted and Defendants' Contingent Cross Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law is denied. In addition the Court finds the remaining patent-in-suit to be both invalid and not infringed.
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...Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Specialty Materials LLC, et al, Civ. No. 06-557-SLR, December 9, 2008.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity is denied.
Continue Reading...Girafa.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al, Civ. No. 07-787-SLR, December 9, 2008 (Mem. Order).
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
Continue Reading...Power Integrations, Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 07-633-JJF-LPS, REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION, November 19, 2008.
Stark, M. J. Magistrate recommends denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
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...Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, Civ. No. 06-091-SLR, November 10, 2008.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s post-trial motion for JMOL or a new trial following jury verdict on validity is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction is granted by separate order and stay of that order pending appeal is denied.
Continue Reading...Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF, November 7, 2008.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial regarding invalidity of the patent-in-suit is denied.
Continue Reading...Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF, November 7, 2008.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion for JMOL of noninfringement and invalidity is denied.
Continue Reading...Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 06-259-MPT, September 19, 2008, amended September 26, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. Ariad’s motion to dismiss declaratory judgment action for invalidity is granted. Motion to dismiss unenforceability defenses is denied. Ariad’s motion for partial summary judgment on inequitable conduct is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 06-259-MPT, September 19, 2008.
Thynge, M.J. The Court issues a claim construction ruling following Markman Hearing.
Continue Reading...In Re: ‘318 Patent Infringement Litigation, C.A. No. 05-356-SLR, August 27, 2008.
Robinson, J. Following a bench trial and post-trial briefing, the Court finds the patent-in-suit is invalid for lack of enablement.
Continue Reading...Robinson, J. Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment that three of the four patents in suit are invalid is denied.
Continue Reading...Innovative Therapies, Inc., v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., et al., CA No. 07-589-SLR-LPS, July 14, 2008.
Stark, M. J. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.
Continue Reading...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
Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GMBH, et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 05-700-JJF, June 16, 2008.
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.
Sleet, C.J. Prior settlement agreement precludes invalidity argument for different product.
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.
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...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.
Thynge, J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of two patents is granted in part and denied in part.
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.
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.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity based upon anticipation is denied.
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.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to disclose the best mode is granted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...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.
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...
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...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...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...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...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...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...Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 03-983-SLR, Feb. 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity with respect to three patents-in-suit denied.
Continue Reading...Microstrategy Incorporated v. Business Objects Americas, No. 03-1124-KAJ, Jan. 23, 2006.
Jordan, J. Court provided claim construction. Also summary judgment motion regarding noninfringement was granted; motion regarding infringement was denied. Motion as to invalidity of 2 of 3 patents was granted; motion regarding invalidity of third patent was denied. Also denied as moot were defendant’s motions regarding noninfringement of the two invalid patents.
Continue Reading...Corning Inc., et al., v. SRU BioSystems, et al., No. 03-633-JJF, Jan. 20, 2006.
Farnan, J. Motion for reconsideration of prior rulings on invalidity for lack of written description and indefiniteness is denied.
Continue Reading...IMX, Inc. v. Lendingtree, LLC, No. 03-1067-SLR, Jan. 10, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion for reconsideration denied regarding prior summary judgment ruling granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment limiting damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 287(a).
Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
