Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Dey Pharma., L.P., et al., Civil Action No.06-113-LPS, January 27, 2012.
Stark, J. Motion for reconsideration granted in part and denied in part.
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...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...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...B. Braun Melsungen AG, et al. v. Terumo Medical Corporation, et al., C. A. No. 09-347-LPS, April 21, 2011.
Stark, J. The Court denied both parties’ JMOL motions and motions for a new trial and entered judgment consistent with the jury verdict. Permanent injunction proposed by defendants entered, effective immediately.
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...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...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...Sepracor Inc. v. Dey L.P. and Dey, Inc., Civil Action No.06-113-JJF, July 15, 2010.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion to file and amended and supplemental complaint and jury demand is granted.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Civil Action No.06-491-MPT, March 19, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. The Order to bifurcate remains in place and the Court adopts plaintiff’s proposed scheduling order on remaining issues.
Continue Reading...Huntley, L.L.C. v. Monterey Mushrooms Inc., Civil Action No. 08-377-GMS, September 18, 2009.
Sleet, C. J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. Defendant’s motion for costs is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.Com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-491a-MPT, July 28, 2009.
Thynge, M.J. Patent misuse shall be tried and determined by the Court and Plaintiff’s claim for damages of the patent-in-suit begins on the date of correction by the PTO.
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...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.
Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
