Thursday, June 24, 2010
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
- ARRIS Group, Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 1:10-cv-1149 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 19, 2010) (Carnes, J.) - Patent infringement suit involving U.S. Patent Nos. 5,659,539 (Frame Accurate Access of Digital Audio-Visual Information); 5,864,682 (same); 6,112,226 (Encoding and Tagging Digital Information for Allowing Non-Sequential Access During Playback); and 6,119,154 (Non-Sequential Access to an In-Progress Video Feed). Plaintiff is represented by Troutman Sanders of Atlanta.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
- Hubbard/Downing, Inc. (d/b/a Hans Performance Products) v. Kevin Heath Enterprises et al., 1:10-cv-01131 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 16, 2010) (Duffey, J.) - Patent infringement suit involving U.S. Patent No. 6,009,566 (Head and Neck Support for Racing). Plaintiff is represented by Ballard Spahr of Atlanta.
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
- Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1:10-cv-01008 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 6, 2010) (Thrash, J.) - Putative class action based on alleged conspiracy to restrain trade involving U.S. Patent No. 6,503,894 (Pharmaceutical Composition). This case was originally filed in Tennessee State court, then remanded to and transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
- Video Enhancement Solutions, L.L.C. v. Creative Labs, Inc. et al., 1:10-cv-00748 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2010) (Forrester, J.) - Patent infringement suit involving U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,397,965 and 7,492,960 (Video Compression and Decompression). Since its filing, this suit has been consolidated with Video Enhancement Solutions, L.L.C. v. Denon Electronics (USA), L.L.C. et al., 1:09-cv-03391 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2009) (Forrester, J.), a case involving the same plaintiff and patents-in-suit.
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Tillotson Corp. v. Top Glove SDN. BHD. et al., 4:05-cv-00232 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2010) (Vining, J.)
Defendants, a corporate parent and its two subsidiaries, moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Vining denied the motion as to the two subsidiaries based on evidence that these defendants imported into and sold thousands of potentially infringing gloves in Georgia and knowingly placed allegedly infringing products into the stream of commerce by selling to entities they knew would resell in Georgia.
The Court granted the motion as to the corporate parent, however, after concluding that there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil. According to the Court, the facts demonstrated that although the parent corporation and its subsidiaries shared officers and directors, the parent corporation was merely a holding company and did not control the activities of its subsidiaries. The Court thus held that the parent corporation should not be subject to jurisdiction through the actions of its subsidiaries.
Defendants, a corporate parent and its two subsidiaries, moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge Vining denied the motion as to the two subsidiaries based on evidence that these defendants imported into and sold thousands of potentially infringing gloves in Georgia and knowingly placed allegedly infringing products into the stream of commerce by selling to entities they knew would resell in Georgia.
The Court granted the motion as to the corporate parent, however, after concluding that there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil. According to the Court, the facts demonstrated that although the parent corporation and its subsidiaries shared officers and directors, the parent corporation was merely a holding company and did not control the activities of its subsidiaries. The Court thus held that the parent corporation should not be subject to jurisdiction through the actions of its subsidiaries.
Friday, May 14, 2010
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
Complaints for violation of the federal false marking statute:
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
- Pollard Banknote Limited Partnership v. Scientific Games International, Inc. et al., 1:10-cv-00621 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2010) (Duffey, J.) - Complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,308,991 (Printed Document Including Bar Code Authentication System). Plaintiff is represented by Kirkland & Ellis of Chicago and my firm, Alston & Bird of Atlanta. Defendants are represented by Dority & Manning of Greenville and Troutman Sanders of Atlanta.
Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination
Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al., 1:09-cv-01098 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 22, 2010) (Batten, J.)
Judge Batten denied Defendants’ motion to stay the action pending reexamination of patent-in-suit. The Court did not detail its reasoning in the Order, but stated that it denied the motion upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments.
Judge Batten denied Defendants’ motion to stay the action pending reexamination of patent-in-suit. The Court did not detail its reasoning in the Order, but stated that it denied the motion upon careful consideration of the parties’ arguments.
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
- Alltec Corporation v. Lightning Prevention Systems, Inc., 1:10-cv-00447 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 16, 2010) (Story, J.) - Design patent infringement suit involving U.S. Design Patent Nos. D478,294 (Lighting Dissipation Assembly) and D478,295 (High Dissipation Discharge Terminal). Plaintiff is represented by Lilenfeld PC and Hope Baldauff Hartman, LLC of Atlanta.
New Northern District of Georgia Patent Cases
- Porex Surgical, Inc. et al. v. Synthes USA Sales, LLC et al., 3:10-cv-00023 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2010) (Camp, J.) - Patent infringement suit involving U.S. Patent No. 7,655,047 (Craniofacial Surgical Implant). Plaintiffs are represented by Kilpatrick Stockton. Defendants are represented by Woodcock Washburn.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination
Selex Communications, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 1:09-cv-02927 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2010)
Judge Thrash granted Defendant’s motion to stay this action pending reexamination of patent-in-suit. The Court did not detail its reasoning in the Order, but stated that it found good cause to stay the case upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and the applicable law.
Judge Thrash granted Defendant’s motion to stay this action pending reexamination of patent-in-suit. The Court did not detail its reasoning in the Order, but stated that it found good cause to stay the case upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and the applicable law.
Order Granting Motion to Transfer in Favor of First-Filed Case
Interactive Communications International, Inc. et al. v. Travel Tags Inc., 1:09-cv-01720 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2010) (Thrash, J.)
Judge Thrash granted the Defendant’s motion to transfer this declaratory action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for consolidation with the Defendant’s first-filed suit for patent infringement. The Court found that it was not in the interests of justice for two nearly identical lawsuits to proceed before two different courts at the same time and deferred to the Minnesota court’s decision that these related cases should be heard in that court.
Judge Thrash granted the Defendant’s motion to transfer this declaratory action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for consolidation with the Defendant’s first-filed suit for patent infringement. The Court found that it was not in the interests of justice for two nearly identical lawsuits to proceed before two different courts at the same time and deferred to the Minnesota court’s decision that these related cases should be heard in that court.
Order Denying Remaining Motions for Summary Judgment Without Prejudice to Permit Appeal of Final Judgment of Non-Infringement
McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. Epic Systems Corporation, 1:06-cv-02965 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010) (Camp, J.)
After granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (see my summary here), the Court was left to decide whether it was necessary to address the parties’ remaining summary judgment motions, namely, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims of invalidity and enforceability.
Rather than decide the remaining motions, set the case for trial on the counterclaims, and fully resolve the counterclaims prior to any appeal, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the counterclaims without prejudice and enter final judgment so that the parties may appeal the dispositive issue of non-infringement.
After granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (see my summary here), the Court was left to decide whether it was necessary to address the parties’ remaining summary judgment motions, namely, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no inequitable conduct and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims of invalidity and enforceability.
Rather than decide the remaining motions, set the case for trial on the counterclaims, and fully resolve the counterclaims prior to any appeal, the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the counterclaims without prejudice and enter final judgment so that the parties may appeal the dispositive issue of non-infringement.
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees
KEG Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Laimer et al., 1:08-cv-00393 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 2, 2010)
After the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in filing their motion to compel, Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit setting forth the specific amount of fees incurred. Defendants disputed the amount sought by Plaintiffs, contending that the amount was not limited to the fees incurred in connection with the motion to compel, but also included fees for reviewing discovery responses, for drafting a good faith letter, and for other work unrelated to the motion.
Magistrate Judge Cole agreed with Defendants and directed them to pay Plaintiffs only the amount of fees incurred in connection with the motion to compel.
After the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in filing their motion to compel, Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit setting forth the specific amount of fees incurred. Defendants disputed the amount sought by Plaintiffs, contending that the amount was not limited to the fees incurred in connection with the motion to compel, but also included fees for reviewing discovery responses, for drafting a good faith letter, and for other work unrelated to the motion.
Magistrate Judge Cole agreed with Defendants and directed them to pay Plaintiffs only the amount of fees incurred in connection with the motion to compel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
