569 results for 'cat:"Patent"'.
J. Barker grants, in part, the patentholder's motion for attorney fees, ruling that while its success in the levy of sanctions against the competitor entitles it to reasonable fees for the outside counsel hired to litigate the sanctions, it is not entitled to fees for the work spent in crafting its reply to the opposition motion filed by the competitor; therefore, the patentholder is awarded $43,000 in fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Barker, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv662, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: patent, Attorney Fees, Contract
J. Brown partially grants the manufacturer's and customer's motion to strike surplusage, irrelevant paragraphs and inappropriate arguments from the company's amended patent infringement counterclaims in a declaratory judgment action brought by the manufacturer. The manufacturer seeks a declaration that a pole for cleaning swimming pools does not infringe on the company's patents. Portions of the counterclaims describing the company's first pole patent application, discussing early communications between the parties and relating to allegations about the benefits of the company's patents are appropriate and will not be struck. The customer's motion to sever and stay the company's counterclaims against it is granted.
Court: USDC Northern District of Georgia, Judge: Brown, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv790, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Komitee declines to issue a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning competing municipal bus lane enforcement technologies. The competing companies had previously engaged in a bidding war over a contract with New York City’s Metropolitan Transit Authority to install its technologies on city buses, both of which detect and report traffic violations in bus lanes. The alleged patent holder fails to present enough evidence to conclusively show the competing company’s product infringes on its patents and further raises issues regarding the validity of its own patents.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Komitee, Filed On: March 9, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv3471, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Transportation
J. Ericksen grants the Christmas tree patent claimant's motion for pre- and post-judgment interest but declines to enhance the jury's royalty damages award. The claimant has not definitively shown that its competitor's infringement on its patent was egregious, and a 10% statutory interest rate is appropriate to apply for pre-judgment interest, while the post-judgment interest rate will be the average 1-year Treasury yield for the week preceding entry of judgment.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Ericksen, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 0:15cv3443, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Civil Procedure, patent
J. Reiss denies a generic drug manufacturer's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claims against a drug developer over a licensing covenant for a transdermal rotigotine patch called Neupro. The covenant allows the developer to sue the generic manufacturer for infringement of new drug products developed after a specific date. Summary judgment on the generic manufacturer's request for a non-infringement declaration cannot be made until the covenant's meaning of "infringment analysis" is determined.
Court: USDC Vermont, Judge: Reiss, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv216, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent
J. Kocoras grants the University of California, Berkeley engineering department motion for summary judgment, and partially grants the sued data analytics platform’s motion for summary judgment, on the university’s claims that the defendant infringed on its patents for programs designed to calculate object level profitability. The court mostly finds in the university’s favor in the patent dispute, but finds in the platform’s favor on the university’s claim that the platform induced infringement by encouraging its customers to use the university’s programs.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kocoras, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 1:17cv7472, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Education, patent
J. Alonso grants Johnson & Johnson’s motion for summary judgment, and denies the suing plastic container manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, on the question of whether Johnson & Johnson’s “Ziploc Endurables” products infringe on the plaintiff’s own line of silicone food containers and the method for creating them. The court finds Ziploc Endurables infringe on neither patent.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Alonso, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv5028, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Technology
J. Taranto finds that the district court improperly ruled in infringement claims concerning a patent for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries because the claim constructions were not contradictory. Reversed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Taranto, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 23-1194, Categories: patent
J. Ludwig defines claim constructions for the fishing gear company's lawsuit against the storage systems company alleging the latter falsely claimed in bad faith that the fishing gear company violated its patent outlining design details of a tackle box for storing fishing equipment. The parties' competing definitions of relevant claim constructions are noted, and most terms require no specific construction. Exceptions include "transparent," which is defined as "allowing the transmission of light in order to provide interior views of the contents," and "nested," which is defined as "one panel partially positioned within another." Deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions are laid out through June 26, 2024.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Ludwig, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv503, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fraud, patent
J. Estudillo sets definitions to terms in the software company's complaint alleging that Amazon infringed on 10 of the former's patents. The term "output manager software" and the disputed function terms are not subject to additional construction, because the software company identifies output manager software that can perform the functions identified in the disputed claim limitation, and thus an ordinary person could understand that output manager software has a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Estudillo, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv1055, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent
J. Lourie finds that the patent trial and appeal board improperly ruled in a dispute over a patent directed to "immunogenic compositions comprising conjugated Streptococcus pneumoniae capsular saccharide antigens for use in pneumococcal vaccines" because evidence does not support the determination that the proposed claims were obvious. Affirmed in part.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Lourie, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 19-1871, Categories: patent
J. Wettre declines to transfer an action to the district of Delaware in claims contending a pharmaceutical company filed applications for a generic version of pirfenidone before related patents expired. A prior, similar lawsuit was fully concluded in Delaware before this complaint was filed, and while the pharmaceutical company is incorporated in Delaware, its principal place of business is in New Jersey.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Wettre , Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv4085, NOS: Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Venue
J. Moore finds that the district court improperly ruled in this dispute over patents related to "improvements in web-based advertising" because genuine issues remain in dispute as to whether the company "establishes characterizations for respective users." Affirmed in part.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Moore, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 2022-1756, Categories: patent
J. Holcomb grants the consumer electronics company judgment on the pleadings regarding the technology company's complaint that the former's "Wi-Fi compatible" products infringe on the latter's patent entitled, "Method and Apparatus for Decoding Transmission Signals in a Wireless Communication System." The technology company's patent does not qualify as an inventive concept because the specification of the patent indicates that it is made of conventional methods and arithmetic averaging that was well understood when the technology company invented it.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Holcomb, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 8:22cv2310, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent
J. Williams dismisses infringement counterclaims concerning patents related to solar energy rapid shutdown technology because the solar power company failed to plead the affirmative defense with particularity and failed to plead that the patent holder breached the contract by refusing to offer a license in lieu of litigation.
Court: USDC Delaware, Judge: Williams, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv915, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Licensing, patent
Magistrate David declines to dismiss two claims concerning the assignment of a patent invented by an agent of a company that had been frozen out of the technology in favor of the co-inventor because the claims are not time-barred according to the pleadings.
Court: Delaware Chancery Court, Judge: David, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 2022-0173-BWD, Categories: Civil Procedure, patent
J. Stadtmueller partially grants the range hood manufacturer's motion to compel discovery regarding jurisdiction in its lawsuit against the Hong Kong-based company it claims sold range hoods at Home Depot stores in the United States that infringe on two of its patents. Limited discovery is ordered regarding, among other things, the development, import and sale of the infringing range hoods in the United States, and the manufacturer's motion to stay briefing on the company's motion to dismiss is granted.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Stadtmueller, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv393, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Discovery
J. Underhill denies the motion to dismiss filed by the company that infringed on the flood prevention device patent, ruling allegations made by the patentholder regarding the company's owners and family members transferring their ownership interests after they became aware of litigation are sufficient to prove fraudulent intent and allow fraudulent transfer claims to proceed.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Underhill, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv840, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fraud, patent
J. Major partly grants a fitness company's motion to compel a treadmill manufacturer to produce license agreements in this patent dispute. Because there is a question regarding the validity and applicability of a licensing and royalty agreement, the patents related to non-curved treadmills and their components are relevant and discoverable. However, the manufacturer is not entitled to the fitness company's profit and loss statements, as this is significant and sensitive financial information from a direct competitor.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Major, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv492, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Discovery
J. Tunheim denies both the university and the cell phone companies' motions to exclude expert testimony in the university's suit alleging infringement on its patents for cellular data transmission technology. The companies' damages expert's report is not so speculative as to warrant exclusion, and her purported use of a report with undisclosed methodology as a single data point for her own evaluation is a factual dispute better suited as a subject for trial testimony. The university's damages expert's report, similarly, is not excludable because of his use of the companies' entire LTE and 5G wireless subscriber base to calculate a reasonable royalty, although the expert's failure to properly apportion the royalty base is "highly concerning." Questions about whether the expert should have accounted for the age of the patents in suit should be decided by the jury, and his choice of one of 200 licensing agreements as a comparison in his negotiation analysis, while also concerning, is adequately explained to avoid exclusion.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 0:14cv4672, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Experts
J. Kasubhai grants the software company's motion for attorney fees for remand proceedings relating to its complaint that the adhesive manufacturing company copied the protected design of the software company's patent for its serial number encoder. The adhesive manufacturing company's conduct during litigation makes this case exceptional, so fees are appropriate. The software company is also entitled to prejudgment interest of 9% to the $36 million damages portion of the initial final judgment.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Kasubhai, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 6:17cv1685, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Damages, Attorney Fees
J. Floyd finds a lower court properly dismissed a timber frame company's patent infringement claims against a construction company. The timber frame manufacturer argued that it was the owner of a licensed patent owner of certain construction photographs. However, the construction company sufficiently showed in court that an actual patent had not been established or properly dated. Affirmed.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Floyd, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: CA-2023-1496, Categories: Construction, patent
J. Navarro grants the pet product manufacturer's motion to dismiss a competitor's declaratory judgment action asserting it did not infringe upon patents when the manufacturer submitted an Amazon Marketplace infringement claim. Amazon removed the accused products, though it has subsequently confirmed the products are again listed for sale. The covenant not to sue does not extend to any planned selling of new products but focuses only on the accused products. The complaint does not request a declaratory judgment as to anything other than the accused products, and there is no longer an actual controversy.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Navarro , Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv483, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Commerce, patent