Renewed invalidity motion is denied due to material issues of fact
Robinson, J. Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment that three of the four patents in suit are invalid is denied.
Continue Reading...Antitrust injury found not amenable to summary judgment practice
Robinson, J. Court stays state law claims of indirect purchasers and counterclaim plaintiffs in Tricor action. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on state law claims are likewise denied without prejudice. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on relevant market definition are denied. Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for summary judgment on antitrust injury is denied.
Continue Reading...Court denies cross-motions for summary judgment on claims for breach of settlement agreement
Sleet, C.J. Prior settlement agreement precludes invalidity argument for different product.
Court denies attorney fees in patent infringement case
Farnan, J. Following a bench trial ruling in favor of plaintiffs’ claims of infringement, the Court denies plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees finding that defendants’ conduct, while sometimes questionable, did not rise to the “exceptional” level.
Continue Reading...Reconsideration of summary judgment ruling is denied
Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, C.A. No. 06-091-SLR, December 4, 2007.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment ruling is denied. Miscellaneous pre-trial rulings are made.
Partial grant of Rexam's motions for summary judgment based on invalidity and non-infringement of beverage can patents
Thynge, J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of two patents is granted in part and denied in part.
Summary judgment of infringement granted in beverage container case
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. et al. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., C.A. No. 05-608-MPT, December 21, 2007.
Thynge, M. J. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of two patents is granted in part and denied in part.
Continue Reading...Patentee prevails on anticipation and breach of contract claims
Callaway Golf Company v. Acushnet Company, C.A. No. 06-091-SLR, November 20, 2007.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment of breach of contract and no anticipation are granted. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no breach of contract, invalidity, and incorporation by reference are denied.
Direct infringement dispositive motions are denied; noninfringement under the DOE is granted where no element analysis was provided
Thynge, M.J. Cross motions for summary judgment of infringement/noninfringement are denied as to literal infringement. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents is granted.
Summary judgment of invalidity denied in LCD case
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity based upon anticipation is denied.
Two claims are found to be anticipated by art considered by the examiner
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment that three claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated is granted as to two claims and denied as to the third.
Failure to disclose the best mode defense prevails in LCD case
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to disclose the best mode is granted.
Summary judgment is denied where expert testimony conflicts
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., et al., v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., C.A. No. 05-608-MPT, October 5, 2007.
Thynge, M.J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss counterclaims of invalidity and non-infringement is denied.
Summary judgment in antitrust action is denied; jurisdictional and venue defenses are upheld
Howard Hess Dental, et al., v. Dentsply International, Inc., C.A. Nos. 99-255-SLR and 01-267, September 26, 2007.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue is granted.
Continue Reading...Unfair competition claim is defeated in summary adjudication; other motions are denied
TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corporation, C.A. No. 05-747-SLR, August 23, 2007.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity due to indefiniteness is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss five “standards-based” counterclaims is denied. Defendant can not present its fraud theory at trial because it cannot prove damages. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment relating to unfair competition is granted in part but denied as to fraud, equitable estoppel, implied license and promissory estoppel.
Claims for conversion and deceptive trade practices under Lanham Act not cognizable
Bavarian Nordic A/S, et al. v. Acambis, Inc, et al., No. 05-614-SLR, May 15, 2007.
Robinson, C.J. The Court ruled in defendants’ favor and against plaintiffs on cross motions for summary judgment where plaintiffs failed to establish claims for conversion or violation of Lanham Act.
Continue Reading...Claim construction rehash resulted in non-infringement ruling in telecommunications case
Telecordia Technologies, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., Nos. 04-875-GMS, 04-876-GMS, May 1, 2007.
Sleet, J. Summary judgment of non-infringement was granted with respect to the '306 patent and denied as to a second patent. Plaintiff's motion that the '306 patent was not anticipated was granted in part. Plaintiff's motion that the '306 patent was not invalid due to lack of enablement was granted. Defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '306 patent for failure to disclose the best mode was denied.
Continue Reading...
Defendant's summary judgment motions were denied; unfair business practices claims were bifurcated.
Affymetrix, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., No. 04-901 JJF, Mar. 30, 2007.
Farnan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment regarding claims of intentional interference with economic advantage and unfair business practices was denied. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity and inequitable conduct were denied. Claims of unfair business practices were bifurcated from the infringement trial.
Continue Reading...Summary judgment of non-infringement in stent case was granted.
Robinson, C.J. Cordis’ renewed motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was granted. Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude evidence of testing by Cordis’ expert Dr. Sabatini and related testimony was denied. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of validity due to no anticipation was granted.
Continue Reading...Summary judgment of non-infringement was denied
Inline Connection Corp. et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc. et al., Nos. 02-272-MPT, 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Feb. 2, 2007.
Thynge, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement was denied.
Continue Reading...
Thynge, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement was denied.
Continue Reading...
Summary judgment of infringement was granted in part
Inline Connection Corp., et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., D. Del. No. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Feb. 1, 2007.
Thynge, J. Motion for summary judgment of infringement of certain claims was denied as moot and of inducement of infringement were denied as moot. Motion for summary judgment of infringement regarding use under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) was granted in part.
Continue Reading...
Thynge, J. Motion for summary judgment of infringement of certain claims was denied as moot and of inducement of infringement were denied as moot. Motion for summary judgment of infringement regarding use under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) was granted in part.
Continue Reading...
Damages expert's testimony was limited in part
Inline Connection Corp., et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., D. Del. No. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Jan. 16, 2007.
Thynge, J. A motion in limine to limit expert testimony was granted in part. A motion for summary judgment to preclude damages for non-infringing lines was denied.
Continue Reading...
Thynge, J. A motion in limine to limit expert testimony was granted in part. A motion for summary judgment to preclude damages for non-infringing lines was denied.
Continue Reading...
Reconsideration of damages limitation was denied
Inline Connection Corp., et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc., et al., No. 02-272-MPT and 02-477-MPT (consolidated), Jan. 12, 2007.
Thynge, J. A motion for reconsideration of December 5, 2006 limitation on damages was denied.
Continue Reading...
Thynge, J. A motion for reconsideration of December 5, 2006 limitation on damages was denied.
Continue Reading...
Reconsideration denied where Plaintiff injected new arguments
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 20, 2006.
Jordan, J. Motion for reargument and reconsideration of previous ruling of non-infringement is denied.
Continue Reading...
Summary judgment on opposed non-invalidity arguments is refused
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the patent is not invalid as obvious is granted in part and denied in part. Continue Reading...
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the patent is not invalid as obvious is granted in part and denied in part. Continue Reading...
Whether references qualify as prior art is left for trial
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that certain evidence cannot qualify as prior art is denied.
Continue Reading...
Cross motions for summary judgment of inequitable conduct denied
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Oct. 30, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that the patent-in-suit is not unenforceable due to alleged inequitable conduct is denied; defendants’ motion for summary judgment of inequitable conduct is denied.
Continue Reading...
Court declines to rule patent was not anticipated.
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of no anticipation is denied.
Continue Reading...
No infringement in camera patent dispute
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Oct. 31, 2006.
Jordan, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is granted.
Continue Reading...
Summary judgment of non-infringement granted
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion based on infringement is denied. Defendants’ non-infringement motions are granted. Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion based on infringement is denied. Defendants’ non-infringement motions are granted. Continue Reading...
Court is unpersuaded by champetry argument
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to join a party are denied. Defendant BBW’s motion for summary judgment based on misassignment of the patent to the Greenspan Company rather than The Greenspan Corporation was denied.
Continue Reading...
Court construes claims relating to skin care product
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Markman ruling with respect to disputed language in two claims of one patent-in-suit.
Continue Reading...
Defendants prevail on invalidity arguments
SRI International Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc. et al., No. 04-1199-SLR, Oct. 17, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment of invalidity are granted. Plaintiff’s motion regarding no anticipation is denied as moot. Defendants’ motion for failure to disclose best mode is denied as moot.
Continue Reading...
Fact issues preclude summary judgment on equitable defenses
McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., No. 04-1258-SLR, Apr. 5, 2006.
Robinson, J. Cross motions for summary judgment of laches are denied due to genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s equitable defense is denied.
Continue Reading...
Robinson, J. Cross motions for summary judgment of laches are denied due to genuine issues of material fact. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s equitable defense is denied.
Continue Reading...
Reconsideration granted after court reviews proper record
Padcom, Inc. v. Netmotion Wireless, Inc., No. 03-983-SLR, Mar. 8, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion for reconsideration granted. Various requests for clarification are addressed.
Summary judgment of invalidity denied
Guidant Corp. et al. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. et al., No. 04-0067-SLR, Jan. 6, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion for summary judgment that reissued patent is invalid under “Recapture Rule” was denied.
Continue Reading...Defendant's summary judgment motions on invalidity denied; plaintiff's motion granted in part
Padcom, Inc. v. Netmotion Wireless, Inc., No. 03-983-SLR, Feb 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of noninvalidity is granted in part, denied in part. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on lack of written description and indefiniteness is denied.
Continue Reading...Summary judgment of invalidity denied
Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 03-983-SLR, Feb. 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity with respect to three patents-in-suit denied.
Continue Reading...Partial summary judgment granted to both sides regarding infringement
Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 03-983-SLR, Feb. 22, 2006.
Robinson, J. Infringement and noninfringement summary judgment motions granted in part, denied in part.
Continue Reading...Court finds two patents invalid, and the third patent not infringed
Microstrategy Incorporated v. Business Objects Americas, No. 03-1124-KAJ, Jan. 23, 2006.
Jordan, J. Court provided claim construction. Also summary judgment motion regarding noninfringement was granted; motion regarding infringement was denied. Motion as to invalidity of 2 of 3 patents was granted; motion regarding invalidity of third patent was denied. Also denied as moot were defendant’s motions regarding noninfringement of the two invalid patents.
Continue Reading...Court declines to reconsider summary judgment ruling for partial summary judgment ruling limiting damages
IMX, Inc. v. Lendingtree, LLC, No. 03-1067-SLR, Jan. 10, 2006.
Robinson, J. Motion for reconsideration denied regarding prior summary judgment ruling granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment limiting damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 287(a).
Universal remote controls found to infringe
Philips Electronics N. Am. Corp. et al. v. Contec Corp. et al., No. 02-123-KAJ, Jan. 9, 2006.
Jordan, J. Motion for summary judgment on liability of indirect infringement was granted; motion for summary judgment of inducement of infringement was denied as moot. A direct infringement claim was dismissed at the consent of the patentee. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and failure to provide damages, as well as Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs, were denied. Continue Reading...
Jordan, J. Motion for summary judgment on liability of indirect infringement was granted; motion for summary judgment of inducement of infringement was denied as moot. A direct infringement claim was dismissed at the consent of the patentee. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and failure to provide damages, as well as Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs, were denied. Continue Reading...
