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...Unauthorized supplemental expert declaration is permitted
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...Plaintiff loses bid for sanctions and must pay costs of motion
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...Disputed contention, even if untimely, is allowed as harmless error
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...Fees are awarded in 30(b)(6) spat
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...Order imposing sanctions remanded for further consideration in light of recent Third Circuit decision
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...Equitable interest in patent claim fails resulting in dismissal and fee award
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...Plaintiff awarded costs of defending motion for discovery abuse sanctions
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...Failure to respond to discovery results in waiver of objections
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...Plaintiff and counsel are sanctioned for willful violation of Discovery Order
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...Patents-in-suit declared unenforceable due to spoliation of evidence and defendant's bad faith litigation conduct
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...Request to extend deadline to pay sanctions denied
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...Damages remitted and enhanced 25% for willfulness; JMOL defenses waived
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...Non-party is sanctioned for vexatious conduct during discovery dispute
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.
Court issues contempt order against defendant for failure to abide by injunction
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
Delaware jurisdiction is proper
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.
Subpoena conduct allegations result in evidentiary hearing
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.
Court denies plaintiff's motion to reconsider
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.
Sanctions awarded due to improper deposition objections
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...Sanctions imposed due to contact with employee of opposing party's affiliate
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.
Over $2.5 in fees and expenses awarded to Patentee in exceptional case
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...
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...
Temporary lack of jurisdiction cured when affiliate was substituted for plaintiff
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...
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...
