Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., Civ. No.08-290a-SLR, February 24, 2010.

Robinson, J.  Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Teles AG Informationstechnologien v. Quintum Technologies, LLC, C.A. No. 06-197-SLR-LPS, October 30, 2009.

Stark, M. J.  The Magistrate orders defendants to produce certain damages information within 20 days of the Order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link