Fee application fails in the absence of bad faith showing
Microsoft Corporation v. WebXchange Inc., C. A. No.09-484-JJF, May 31, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied.
Continue Reading...Microsoft Corporation v. WebXchange Inc., C. A. No.09-484-JJF, May 31, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied.
Continue Reading...Biovail Laboratories International SRL v. Cary Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civ. No.09-605-JJF-LPS, May 26, 2010.
Stark, M. J. Defendant’s motion to strike expert’s supplemental declaration is denied.
Continue Reading...Trueposition Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, Civ. No.05-747-SLR, May 4, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for supplemental damages based on “previously undisclosed sales for pre-injunction activity and sanctions for post-injunction activity are denied.
Continue Reading...Webxchange Inc. v. Fedex Corporation, et al., C.A. No.08-133b-JJF, January 20, 2010.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s Third supplemental Response to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 1 and for a protective order and motion for leave to file a surreply in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition testimony is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition testimony is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Innovative Patents, LLC, et al. v. Brain-Pad, Inc., C.A. No. 07-680-MPT, November 4, 2009.
Thynge, M. J. Defendant’s motion for fees and costs relating to the deposition of a 30(b)(6) corporate representative is granted in part.
Continue Reading...Sea Star Line, LLC v. Emerald Equipment Leasing, Inc., Civ. Act. No. 05-245-JJF, October 6, 2009.
Farnan, J. Motion to vacate or set aside order imposing sanctions is granted and matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration.
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...Dow Chemical Canada Inc. v. HRD Corporation (d/b/a Marcus Oil & Chemical), Civil Action No. 05-023-JJF, July 30, 2009.
Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion for discovery abuse sanctions is denied with the costs of defending the motion awarded to plaintiff.
Continue Reading...SWIMC, Inc. v. Hy-Tech Thermal Solutions, LLC, et al., Civ. No. 08-084-SLR, June 24 , 2009.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is granted.
Continue Reading...Sea Star Line, LLC v. Emerald Equipment Leasing, Inc., Civ. No. 05-245-JJF-LPS, May 26 , 2009.
Stark, M. J. Magistrate finds initial award of sanctions is appropriate on remand and extends order to include sanctions against both plaintiff and its counsel.
Continue Reading...Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Civ. No. 00-792-SLR, January 9, 2009.
Robinson, J. Court declares patents-in-suit unenforceable following bench trial on issues of alleged spoliation of evidence and unclean hands by defendant.
Continue Reading...Sea Star Line, LLC v. Emerald Equipment Leasing, Inc., Civ. No. 05-245-JJF-LPS, December 3, 2008.
Stark, M. J. Plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline to pay sanctions pursuant to earlier Court order is denied.
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...In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation., C.A. No. 05-1717 JJF, May 14, 2008.
Farnan, J. This Court adopts Special Master’s recommendation that non-party be sanctioned for vexatious litigation conduct during adjudication of discovery dispute.
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
LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd, v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics, et al., and AU Optronics Corporation v. LG. Philips LCD, Co., Ltd, et al., C.A. Nos. 06-726 and 07-357-JJF, April 29, 2008.
Farnan, J. Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service of process are denied. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions and for leave to take jurisdictional discovery are denied.
Digacomm, LLC v. Vehicle Safety & Compliance, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 08-MC-63-JJF, April 29, 2008.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff petitioned to enforce a subpoena to the Fish and Richardson law firm. The Court ordered an evidentiary hearing.to resolve professional issues even if the subpoena issues are fully resolved.
Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.Com, Inc., C.A. No. 06-491-MPT, January 22, 2008.
Thynge, J. Court denies plaintiff’s motion to reconsider its prior ruling denying plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim for declaratory judgment.
Promos Technologies, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., C.A. No. 06-788-JJF, December 20, 2007.
Farnan, J. The Court grants a motion to compel Defendant to reproduce a 30(b)(6) witness where improper objections were asserted. Sanctions were awarded.
Continue Reading...Microsoft Corp. v. Alcatel Business Systems et al., C.A. No. 07-090-SLR, December 18, 2007.
Robinson, J. Motion to disqualify law firm is granted in part and denied in part.