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...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...
St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., et al., Civ. Act. No. 03-241-JJF, November 19, 2009.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s Motion For New Trial On Damages Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, Or In The Alternative, Motion For Prejudgment And Post-Judgment Interest will be denied to the extent a new trial is sought and granted to the extent that prejudgment and post-judgment interest is sought. In addition, Plaintiff’s Motion For A New Trial On Infringement will be denied because the Court has not modified it claim construction. The Final Judgment Order in this case will be amended to reflect the Court's prejudgment and post-judgment interest rulings.
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...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...Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., Civ. No. 07-190-SLR, May 15 , 2009.
Robinson J. Defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and remittitur is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest is granted.
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, et al., Civ. No. 04-1371-JJF, December 12, 2008.
Farnan, J. Court grants in part defendant’s Motion for Remitter [sic], Judgment as a Matter of Law, or, in the Alternative for a New Trial on Damages to the extent that it requests a remittitur enters order reducing the damages awarded by 82%.
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...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...Becton Dickinson and Company v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, No. 02-1694-GMS, October 14, 2008.
Sleet, C.J. The Court denies defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law having ruled that substantial evidence was presented to support the jury’s infringement verdict.
Continue Reading...Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 97-550-SLR (Consolidated); Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al. C.A. No. 98-19-SLR, September 15, 2008.
Robinson, J. Following decade-long litigation, the Court grants Cordis’ motion for entry of final judgment and denies BSC’s motion for new trial and Medtronic’s motion for JMOL on lost profit damages.
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
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.
Cordis Corporation v. Boston Scientific Corporation, et al., C.A. Nos. 03-027-SLR and 03-283-SLR, September 24, 2007.
Robinson, J. Cordis’ motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial is denied.
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...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.
Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
