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...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...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...Apeldyn Corporation v. Au Optronics Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 08-568-SLR, November 15, 2011.
Robinson, J. Daubert motion 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...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...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...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...S.O.I.TEC Silicon on Insulator Technologies, S.A. and Commissariat à L’Énergie Atomique v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., Civ. No. 08-292-SLR, July 13, 2011.
Robinson, J. Post-trial motions are either denied or moot.
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...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...In Re: Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation, Civ. No. 09-2118-SLR, May 12, 2011.
Robinson, J. After bench trial, the courts issues claim constructions and finds that defendants infringe the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit, that the patents are not invalid for failure to disclose their best mode, and that the patents are invalid as obvious. The court further finds that the patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
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...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...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...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...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...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...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...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...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...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...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.
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...
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.
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...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...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...Enter keywords:
For more information concerning any of these cases, contact Mary Matterer at mmatterer@morrisjames.com or 302.888.6960
