Friday, May 28, 2010
Illinois Computer Research LLC v. Harpo Productions, Inc et al., 1-08-cv-07322 (ILND May 26, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Kennelly, J.)
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., 1-05-cv-05373 (ILND May 24, 2010, Order) (Coar, J.)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tyco Healthcare Group LP et al v. E-Z-EM, Inc., 2-07-cv-00262 (TXED May 24, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Ward, J.)
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Josephs v. Sigma-Aldrich Corp., 2-10-cv-10660 (MIED May 21, 2010, Report & Recommendation) (Morgan, M.J.)
Monday, May 24, 2010
ZOJO Solutions Inc. v. The Stanley Works, 1-10-cv-01175 (ILND May 12, 2010, Memorandum Order) (Shadur, J.)
Friday, May 21, 2010
Patentee's "Policy and Practice" of Marking was Insufficient to Establish Compliance with Marking Requirement
von Holdt v. A-1 Tool Corp., 1-04-cv-04123 (ILND May 17, 2010, Memorandum) (Manning, J.)
Motion to Stay pending the Federal Circuit's Decision in Stauffer v. Brooks Bros. Denied in False Marking Case
Prejudice from Stay
The court denied defendants' motion to stay pending the Federal Circuit's decision in Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., 615 F. Supp. 2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). "If the issue in Stauffer. . . is novel as defendants assert, then it may be appealed beyond the Federal Circuit to the Supreme Court, leaving a final decision on the constitutional issue in Stauffer years in the future. . . . Indeed, since [plaintiff] claims to be a direct competitor, there is also the possibility that a late-assertion of actual damages will render the issue in Stauffer a moot point here. . . . Even defendants argue only that any decision in this case could be guided by a Federal Circuit decision on the Stauffer appeal."
Simplification of Issues
Defendants' motion to stay plaintiff's false marking claims pending the Federal Circuit's decision in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 646 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Va. 2009), was denied. "[W]hile defendants claim the appeal in Pequignot raises issues regarding some relevant standards used in deciding false markings cases, they fail to explain why a decision on those standards justifies a stay in this case. . . . Such uncertainty regarding whether a decision in the other cases will actually simplify the issues in this case weighs against staying the case."
In denying defendants' motion to stay pending the resolution of Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., 615 F. Supp. 2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 646 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Va. 2009), and Brule Research Assoc. Team, L.L.C. v. A.O. Smith Corp., Case No. 08-C-1116 (E.D. Wis. 2009), the court found that "[m]ost cases, even those turning principally on discrete issues of law, are dependent on their facts, leaving the distinct possibility that a party can distinguish otherwise controlling decisions based on factual differences. Defendant has not provided any discussion of why the facts in this case match-up so closely with those in Stauffer, Pequignot or Brule Research, to discount this possibility in this case."
Hy Cite Corporation v. Regal Ware, Inc. et al, 3-10-cv-00168 (WIWD May 19, 2010, Order) (J. Conley)
Thursday, May 20, 2010
American Medical Systems, Inc et al v. Laser Peripherals, LLC, 0-08-cv-04798 (MND May 13, 2010, Order) (Ericksen, J.)
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Patent requiring "trial and error" and "working backwards" to calculate the value of a claimed variable was invalid for lack of enablement.
Tailored Lighting, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., 6-04-cv-06435 (NYWD May 14, 2010, Order) (Telesca, J.)
In a counterclaim filed May 17, 2010, Oakley, Inc., a sport sunglasses manufacturer, is accused of marking its products with hundreds of patents that were either:
(ii) did not cover the marked products (e.g. patents on shoes and watches),
(iii) were not owned by Oakley, or
(iv) were non-existent.
The counterclaim was filed by Suntech Optics, Inc. in response to accusations of infringement of patents D580963, 5387949, and 5638145.
Oakley, Inc. v. Ryders Eyewear, 3-09-cv-02037 (CASD San Diego)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sybase, Inc. v. Vertica Systems, Inc., 6-08-cv-00024 (TXED May 13, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Davis, J.)
Monday, May 17, 2010
"Providing Free Credits to Induce Gambling" Does Not Constitute Direction or Control Over Player for Purposes of Joint Direct Infringement
Aristocrat Technologies et al v. International Game Technology et al., 5-06-cv-03717 (CAND May 13, 2010, Order) (Whyte, J.)
Friday, May 14, 2010
In Trial of Declaratory Relief Case, Defendant to Proceed First and Neither Party May Refer to Itself as "Plaintiff"
DuPont Air Products NanoMaterials L.L.C. v. Cabot Microelectronics Corporation, 2-06-cv-02952 (AZD May 12, 2010, Order) (Silver, J.)
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Rainworks Limited v. Mill-Rose Company, 1-06-cv-01549 (OHND May 11, 2010, Order) (Boyko, J.)
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Parallel Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2-09-cv-00172 (TXED May 10, 2010, Order) (Folsom, J.)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Norbrook Laboratories Ltd et al., 2-08-cv-00953 (WIED May 7, 2010, Order) (Randa, J.)
Monday, May 10, 2010
Finisar Corporation v. Source Photonics, Inc. et al., 3-10-cv-00032 (CAND May 5, 2010, Order) (Alsup, J.)
Ronald A Katz Technology Licensing L P v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 2-07-cv-02134 (CACD May 5, 2010) (Klausner, J.)
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim Does Not Vest Court With Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Unasserted Patent Claims
Sloan Valve Company v. Zurn Industries, Inc. et al., 1-10-cv-00204 (ILND May 4, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (St. Eve, J.)
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Thermal Solutions, Inc. v. Imura International U.S.A., Inc. et al., 2-08-cv-02220 (KSD April 28, 2010, Memorandum & Order) (Waxse, M.J.)
Monday, May 3, 2010
Failure to Review Discovery Produced "Years Earlier" Does Not Justify Late Introduction of New Inequitable Conduct Theories
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 1-06-cv-00100 (NHD April 29, 2010, Order) (DiClerico, J.)