Sanctions : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

Monetary sanction imposed for corporation's failure to obtain counsel

Posted on December 20, 2011 by Kenneth L. Dorsney

WebXChange Inc. v. Fedex Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 08-133-RGA, December 15, 2011, and WebXChange Inc. v. Dell Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 08-132-RGA, December 15, 2011.

Andrews, J. Plaintiff ordered to obtain counsel by a specific date and to escrow with the Clerk money to pay defendants’ respective attorneys’ fees and expenses until counsel obtained. Failure to obtain counsel will result in dismissal.

Tags: Andrews, Delaware Procedure/Rules, Dismissal, Sanctions

Court orders contempt hearing regarding redesigned product

Posted on September 16, 2011 by Kenneth L. Dorsney

nCUBE Corporation (now Arris Group, Inc.) v. Seachange International, Inc. (redacted), C. A. No. 01-011-LPS, September 2, 2011.

Stark, J. After a hearing on whether this dispute is amenable to a contempt proceeding, the court reserves judgment on plaintiff’s motion for contempt to hold defendant in contempt of permanent injunction order and schedules a contempt hearing.

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Equitable Defenses and Remedies, Estoppel, Infringement, Sanctions, Stark

Use of evidence in violation of trial practice guidelines warranted new trial

Posted on August 19, 2011 by Kenneth L. Dorsney

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.

Tags: Delaware Procedure/Rules, Evidence, Invalidity, JMOL/New Trial, Jury Issues/Instructions, Obviousness, Robinson, Sanctions

Fee application fails in the absence of bad faith showing

Posted on June 3, 2010 by Morris James LLP

Microsoft Corporation v. WebXchange Inc., C. A. No.09-484-JJF, May 31, 2010.

Farnan, J. Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied.

Tags: Attorneys' Fees/Costs/Interest, Farnan, Sanctions

Unauthorized supplemental expert declaration is permitted

Posted on June 2, 2010 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Delaware Procedure/Rules, Motion to Strike/Preclude, Sanctions, Stark

Plaintiff loses bid for sanctions and must pay costs of motion

Posted on May 6, 2010 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Attorneys' Fees/Costs/Interest, Costs, Damages, Equitable Defenses and Remedies, Robinson, Sanctions

Disputed contention, even if untimely, is allowed as harmless error

Posted on February 3, 2010 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Costs, Discovery, Farnan, Sanctions

Fees are awarded in 30(b)(6) spat

Posted on November 24, 2009 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Discovery, Sanctions, Thynge

Order imposing sanctions remanded for further consideration in light of recent Third Circuit decision

Posted on October 14, 2009 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Farnan, Reconsideration/Reargument, Sanctions

Equitable interest in patent claim fails resulting in dismissal and fee award

Posted on September 24, 2009 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Dismissal, Jury Issues/Instructions, Sanctions, Sleet

Plaintiff awarded costs of defending motion for discovery abuse sanctions

Posted on August 4, 2009 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Discovery, Farnan, Sanctions

Failure to respond to discovery results in waiver of objections

Posted on July 1, 2009 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Discovery, Robinson, Sanctions

Plaintiff and counsel are sanctioned for willful violation of Discovery Order

Posted on May 29, 2009 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Discovery, Sanctions, Stark

Patents-in-suit declared unenforceable due to spoliation of evidence and defendant's bad faith litigation conduct

Posted on February 4, 2009 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Discovery, Exceptional Case/Willfulness, Robinson, Sanctions, Spoliation

Request to extend deadline to pay sanctions denied

Posted on December 23, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Sanctions, Stark

Damages remitted and enhanced 25% for willfulness; JMOL defenses waived

Posted on August 6, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Damages, Equitable Defenses and Remedies, Estoppel/res judicata, Exceptional Case/Willfulness, Infringement, JMOL/New Trial, Robinson, Sanctions

Non-party is sanctioned for vexatious conduct during discovery dispute

Posted on June 23, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Discovery, Farnan, Sanctions

Court issues contempt order against defendant for failure to abide by injunction

Posted on May 22, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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

Tags: Attorneys' Fees/Costs/Interest, Exceptional Case/Willfulness, Infringement, JMOL/New Trial, Sanctions, Sleet

Delaware jurisdiction is proper

Posted on May 22, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Farnan, Jurisdiction/Venue/Standing, Sanctions

Subpoena conduct allegations result in evidentiary hearing

Posted on May 2, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Discovery, Farnan, Sanctions

Court denies plaintiff's motion to reconsider

Posted on January 29, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Infringement, Reconsideration/Reargument, Sanctions, Thynge

Sanctions awarded due to improper deposition objections

Posted on January 6, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Discovery, Farnan, Privilege, Sanctions

Sanctions imposed due to contact with employee of opposing party's affiliate

Posted on January 6, 2008 by Morris James LLP

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.

Tags: Daubert/Experts, Disqualification of Counsel, Robinson, Sanctions

Over $2.5 in fees and expenses awarded to Patentee in exceptional case

Posted on January 25, 2007 by Morris James LLP

Philips Electronics North America Corp. et al. v. Compo Micro Tech, Inc., et al., No. 02-123-KAJ, Oct. 23, 2006.

Jordan, J. The Court awarded $2,448,750 in attorneys fees and $285,690.44 in expenses. $2,515,514.90 in fees and $747,141.93 had been requested. Continue Reading...

Tags: Infringement, Sanctions

Temporary lack of jurisdiction cured when affiliate was substituted for plaintiff

Posted on January 17, 2007 by Morris James LLP

Affinion Loyalty Group, Inc. v. Maritz, Inc., C.A. 04-360-JJF, May 22, 2006.

Farnan, J. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to a corporate acquisition which assigned rights to patents-in-suit to Affinion Patents, leaving Affinion Loyalty without standing. The court substituted Affinion Patents for Affinion Loyalty.

Continue Reading...

Tags: Amendment of Pleadings, Jurisdiction/Venue/Standing, Real Party in Interest/Standing/Agency, Sanctions

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

Published By
Morris James LLP

Short tagline goes here

Monetary sanction imposed for corporation's failure to obtain counsel

Court orders contempt hearing regarding redesigned product

Use of evidence in violation of trial practice guidelines warranted new trial

Fee application fails in the absence of bad faith showing

Unauthorized supplemental expert declaration is permitted

Plaintiff loses bid for sanctions and must pay costs of motion

Disputed contention, even if untimely, is allowed as harmless error

Fees are awarded in 30(b)(6) spat

Order imposing sanctions remanded for further consideration in light of recent Third Circuit decision

Equitable interest in patent claim fails resulting in dismissal and fee award

Plaintiff awarded costs of defending motion for discovery abuse sanctions

Failure to respond to discovery results in waiver of objections

Plaintiff and counsel are sanctioned for willful violation of Discovery Order

Patents-in-suit declared unenforceable due to spoliation of evidence and defendant's bad faith litigation conduct

Request to extend deadline to pay sanctions denied

Damages remitted and enhanced 25% for willfulness; JMOL defenses waived

Non-party is sanctioned for vexatious conduct during discovery dispute

Court issues contempt order against defendant for failure to abide by injunction

Delaware jurisdiction is proper

Subpoena conduct allegations result in evidentiary hearing

Court denies plaintiff's motion to reconsider

Sanctions awarded due to improper deposition objections

Sanctions imposed due to contact with employee of opposing party's affiliate

Over $2.5 in fees and expenses awarded to Patentee in exceptional case

Temporary lack of jurisdiction cured when affiliate was substituted for plaintiff