- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ware et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch stores, Inc. et al., 4:07-cv-0122 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 12, 2010) (Vining, J.)
Defendant Aeropostale, Inc. moved for summary judgment, contending that there is no infringement under the claim constructions Plaintiff sought in a prior case, nor under any other constructions the court might independently reach. The court denied the motion as premature. The court stated that it would revisit the issue after discovery and a proper claim construction process in which all parties will have an opportunity to submit their proposed claim constructions.
- Therma-Stor LLC et al. v. Abatement Technologies, Inc. et al., 1:10-cv-00035 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 6, 2010) (Thrash, J.) - Patent infringement suit involving U.S. Patent Nos. 7,246,503; 7,281,389 and 7,540,166 (all directed to dehumidifiers).
IP Co. LLC, et al. v. Cellnet Technology, Inc., et al., 1:06-cv-03048 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2009) (Carnes, J.)
The Court granted Defendant B&L’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claim that B&L breached a Notification Agreement between the parties. Plaintiffs asserted that B&L violated an obligation to notify Plaintiffs of an asset transaction involving certain patents that had been licensed to Plaintiffs. Under the Court’s interpretation of the Notification Agreement, the Court held that the B&L transaction fell outside the terms of the notification obligations. In the alternative, the Court held that the Notification Agreement was superseded by a 2005 Release Agreement that expressly contemplated the transaction about which Plaintiffs complained.
B&L also moved for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against SIPCO. The Court denied this motion in view of Plaintiffs’ evidence that SIPCO substantially complied with its contractual obligations and/or that B&L waived its right to contest any non-compliance, evidence that, according to the Court, raised genuine issues of fact for the jury.
OFS Fitel, LLC v. Sterlite Optical Technologies, Ltd., et al., 1:02-cv-02149 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2009) (Pannell, J.)
Judge Pannell adopted in-part the special master’s report and recommendation regarding the parties’ motions for summary judgment. In light of the Defendant’s stipulations as to literal infringement of certain claims the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement as to such claims and rejected those portions of the special master’s report that conflicted with the Defendant’s stipulations.
McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. Epic Systems Corp., 1:06-cv-02965 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2009) (Camp, J.)
Defendant moved for summary judgment and argued that it did not infringe the patent-in-suit, which related to an online communication system for use between health care providers and patients, as a matter of law because (i) the claimed method required that certain steps be performed by a health care provider and that other steps be performed by users of the accused online system and (ii) the health care providers did not direct or control users in the performance of the users’ steps.
The parties agreed that the claimed step of “initiating a communication” was performed by a patient or other user upon visiting the Defendant’s website, and not by a healthcare provider. As a result, Plaintiff was required to show that the healthcare providers directed or controlled the users in carrying out the “initiating a communication” step. The Court discussed the “direction or control” standard for finding direct infringement of multi-actor patent claims, as set forth in recent decisions from the Federal Circuit. See Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1585 (2009) and Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC, 586 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 1333 n.1 (S.D. Fla. 2008), aff’d, 318 F. App’x 908 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Finding that Plaintiff’s evidence showed only that healthcare providers controlled the users’ access to the accused system, which was held to be insufficient evidence of direction and control in Muniauction, the Court concluded that it was required to grant Defendant’s motion.
Notably, the Court remarked that the Federal Circuit’s rule regarding multi-actor patent claims and its interpretation of the standard for proving infringement of such claims “severely limits the protection provided for patents which would otherwise be valid and enforceable . . . [and] weakens the policy of providing protection to those who devote the time and resources to develop otherwise novel and patentable methods.”
Graywire, LLC v. Ciena Corp. et al., 1:08-cv-02993 (N.D. Ga. July 17, 2009) (Martin, J.)
Judge Martin granted a stay of the case pending inter partes reexamination proceedings involving each of the three patents-in-suit. The reexamination requests were filed by one or more of the Defendants early in the litigation and the remaining defendant agreed to be bound by the USPTO’s determination. The Court found that a stay would simplify the issues for trial and any inherent delay would not prejudice the Plaintiff.
Chemfree Corp. v. J. Walter, Inc. et al., 1:04-cv-03711 (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2009) (Camp, J.)
The Court issued rulings on the parties’ cross-motions in limine relating to the use of certain prior art references.
