Defendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Defendant. SUMMARY ORDER. Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action"

Transcription

1 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPC BROADBAND, INC., d/b/a PPC, v. Plaintiff, 5:11-cv-761 (GLS/DEP) CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC., Defendant. SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC commenced this action against defendant Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, alleging infringement of several claims in two patents held by PPC. (See generally Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On February 3, 2015, this court held an interim pretrial conference and scheduled the trial in this matter to begin on July 20, (Dkt. No. 220.) Following that conference, Corning filed the pending motion to amend/supplement its answer to include an affirmative defense and/or counterclaim alleging inequitable conduct on the part of PPC during proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark

2 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 13 Office (PTO). 1 (Dkt. No. 223.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted. As relevant to the pending motion, and as alleged by Corning in its proposed amended pleading, the two patents in suit here, U.S. Patent No. 6,558,194 ( 194 patent ) and U.S. Patent No. 6,848,940 ( 940 patent ), are closely related to, and part of the same family as, a third patent, which is the subject of a different pending action between these two parties, U.S. Patent No. 6,676,446 ( 446 patent ). (Dkt. No. 223, Attach. 2 1, 146, ) In late 2013, Corning requested that the PTO initiate reexamination proceedings with respect to both the 194 and 940 patents, claiming that they were obvious in light of certain prior art, and, thus, invalid. (Id. 150, 185.) Reexamination of both the 194 and 940 patents was ordered, and ultimately concluded in January 2015 when the PTO issued Reexamination Certificates confirming the validity of the two patents. (Id. 151, 169, 185, 188.) However, while these reexaminations were pending, Corning also sought, in May 2014, an inter partes review 1 Corning has filed a reply memorandum in connection with this motion. (Dkt. No. 225.) Notably, pursuant to this court s local rules on non-dispositive motions such as this, [r]eply papers... are not permitted without the Court s prior permission. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(b)(2). Corning did not seek the court s prior permission before filing its reply here. In any event, as PPC has not opposed the filing of the reply, the court will construe Corning s filing as seeking permission to file a reply, and grants such request. 2

3 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 13 (IPR) proceeding with respect to the related 446 patent. (Id. 152.) In that petition, Corning made similar arguments as those raised in the 194 and 940 patent reexaminations, asserting that certain claims of the 446 patent were likewise invalid for obviousness in light of the same prior art raised in the 194 and 940 patent reexaminations. (Id.) In September 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Corning s petition for IPR, indicating in its decision that Corning has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating that each of claims 1-3 and 7 [of the 446 patent] is unpatentable for obviousness over [the asserted prior art]. (Id. 153; Dkt. No. 223, Attach. 11 at 16.) As alleged by Corning, certain representatives of PPC who were involved in all of the above proceedings, including both its in-house and outside counsel, as well as its long-time expert witness, were personally aware of the PTAB s decision questioning the validity of the 446 patent, and did not disclose this decision to the PTO at any time during the pendency of the reexaminations of the closely related 194 and 940 patents. (Dkt. No. 223, Attach , ) Corning maintains that, if this information had been fully disclosed, the patent examiners in the reexaminations would have reached a different outcome, and would not 3

4 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 4 of 13 have confirmed the validity of the 194 and 940 patents. (Id , 189.) Further, Corning alleges that the circumstances surrounding the non-disclosure raise at least an inference that PPC had the requisite intent to deceive or mislead the PTO when it failed to disclose the full extent of the developments in the 446 patent s IPR proceedings. (Id , 190.) As a threshold matter, Corning relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 as the basis to permit the amendment of its answer and counterclaims here. (Dkt. No. 223 at 1; Dkt. No. 223, Attach. 1 at 3-4.) Rule 15(a) 2 provides that, where a party seeks to amend its pleading before trial, [t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, [w]here a scheduling order has been entered, the lenient standard under Rule 15(a)... must be balanced against the requirement under Rule 16(b) that the Court s scheduling order shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause. Laskowski v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 5:11-cv-340, 2013 WL , at *2 n.3 2 Although Corning notes that its motion is really one to supplement, under Rule 15(d), and not a motion to amend, under Rule 15(a), (Dkt. No. 225 at 9 n.5), this distinction is of no moment. See Gittens v. Sullivan, 670 F. Supp. 119, (S.D.N.Y. 1987) ( The standard for the exercise of discretion on a motion to supplement the pleadings is the same as that for disposition of a motion to amend a complaint under Rule 15(a). ), aff d, 848 F.2d 389 (2d Cir. 1988). 4

5 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 5 of 13 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2013) (quoting Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2003)). To satisfy the good cause standard the party must show that, despite its having exercised diligence, the applicable deadline could not have been reasonably met. Id. at *2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, the good cause standard is not satisfied when the proposed amendment rests on information that the party knew, or should have known, in advance of the deadline. Enzymotec Ltd. v. NBTY, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 527, 536 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, although Corning did not explicitly identify Rule 16 in its moving papers as the governing standard given the issuance of a pre-trial scheduling order in this case, Corning has made arguments that appear to be directed to the existence of good cause justifying an amendment at this late juncture. (Dkt. No. 223, Attach. 1 at 3-4, 5-6.) Specifically, Corning notes that the reexaminations of the 194 and 940 patents did not conclude until January 2015, and, therefore, Corning could not have asserted a claim of inequitable conduct prior to that point, as PPC could have cured [its omission] by a timely submission, Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, (Fed. Cir. 2007), to the PTO up until the close of 5

6 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 6 of 13 the reexaminations. (Dkt. No. 223, Attach. 1 at 5-6; Dkt. No. 225 at 9-10.) Accordingly, the relevant delay for purposes of assessing good cause and due diligence here is just over two months, as the instant motion was filed in March (Dkt. No. 223.) The court finds that this relatively brief delay does not demonstrate a lack of diligence by Corning, see Tailored Lighting, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania Prods., Inc., 255 F.R.D. 340, (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding good cause where party seeking amendment filed motion to amend approximately four months after it first learned of the existence of possible inequitable conduct defense), nor would permitting this amendment unduly prejudice PPC, as the court, at the parties request, (Dkt. No. 223, Attach. 1 at 17-18; Dkt. No. 224 at 24-25), intends to bifurcate this issue from the jury issues of infringement, validity, and damages. 3 See Kassner v. 2d Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 244 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that [t]he district court, in the exercise of its discretion under Rule 16(b), also may consider other relevant factors 3 Inequitable conduct is an equitable issue decided by the court, not by a jury. See Gen. Electro Music Corp. v. Samick Music Corp., 19 F.3d 1405, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ( [D]isputed issues of fact underlying the issue of inequitable conduct are not jury questions, the issue being entirely equitable in nature. ); Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Labs., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ( The defense of inequitable conduct in a patent suit, being entirely equitable in nature, is not an issue for a jury to decide. (citing Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 538 (1970))). 6

7 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 7 of 13 including, in particular, whether allowing the amendment of the pleading at this stage of the litigation will prejudice the opposing party). The parties appear to agree that, should any additional discovery be necessary in connection with the inequitable conduct claim, it should not take place until after the jury trial, so as to not affect the schedule of the trial or the parties preparations therefor, (Dkt. No. 223, Attach. 1 at 17-18; Dkt. No. 224 at 24-25), which would ameliorate the prejudice asserted by PPC, (Dkt. No. 224 at 6-8). As to the underlying defense sought to be added by Corning, [i]nequitable conduct is an equitable defense to patent infringement that, if proved, bars enforcement of a patent. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the [PTO], which includes a duty to disclose... all information known to that individual to be material to patentability. 37 C.F.R. 1.56(a); see Critikon Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A breach of this duty, by way of the withholding of material information from a patent examiner, can form the basis for a claim of inequitable conduct. See Li 7

8 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 8 of 13 Second Family Ltd. P ship v. Toshiba Corp., 231 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Thus, a claim of inequitable conduct arises where the accused infringer... prove[s] that the applicant misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific intent to deceive the PTO. Therasense, 649 F.3d at The accused infringer must prove both elements intent and materiality by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Direct evidence of intent or proof of deliberate scheming is rarely available in instances of inequitable conduct, but intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Critikon, 120 F.3d at If the accused infringer meets its burden, then the district court must weigh the equities to determine whether the applicant s conduct before the PTO warrants rendering the entire patent unenforceable. Therasense, 649 F.3d at Here, PPC opposes Corning s motion to amend on the grounds that such amendment would be futile because it is inadequately pleaded, and based on its view that Corning would ultimately be unsuccessful in proving this defense. (Dkt. No. 224 at 8-24.) These arguments are unavailing at this juncture. [I]nequitable conduct... must be pled with particularity under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 9(b). Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart 8

9 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 9 of 13 Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A pleading that simply avers the substantive elements of inequitable conduct, without setting forth the particularized factual bases for the allegation, does not satisfy Rule 9(b). Id. at [I]n pleading inequitable conduct in patent cases, Rule 9(b) requires identification of the specific who, what, when, where, and how of the material misrepresentation or omission committed before the PTO. Id. at While the intent element may be averred generally,... the pleadings [must] allege sufficient underlying facts from which a court may reasonably infer that a party acted with the requisite state of mind. Id. Here, the court finds that Corning s inequitable conduct defense is adequately pleaded. Corning has pleaded facts that could reasonably support a claim that PPC representatives misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific intent to deceive the PTO. Therasense, 649 F.3d at Corning has alleged the specific circumstances of the failure to disclose for example, what exactly was withheld, the specific PPC representatives who were involved and failed to disclose material information that was known to them, and when these disclosures could logically have been made in communications with the 9

10 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 10 of 13 PTO. (Dkt. No. 223, Attach ) Further, Corning has cited legal support for its argument that the failure to disclose the PTAB s decision to grant IPR of the 446 patent could be a material omission because the patents are closely related. (Dkt. No. 223, Attach. 1 at 9-11; Dkt. No. 223, Attach ); see Larson Mfg. Co. of S.D., Inc. v. Aluminart Prods. Ltd., 559 F.3d 1317, (Fed. Cir. 2009); Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that a contrary decision of another examiner reviewing a substantially similar claim meets the... threshold materiality test of any information that a reasonable examiner would substantially likely consider important in deciding whether to allow an application to issue as a patent (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). And, given Corning s allegations that the same actors were involved in all of the relevant proceedings and regarding the temporal proximity between the PTAB s decision and further communications with the PTO in the reexaminations, (Dkt. No. 223, Attach , ), sufficient facts are alleged from which the fact-finder could reasonably infer that the omission was intentional. See Ferring B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 437 F.3d 1181, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that intent may be inferred where: (1) the applicant knew of the information; (2) the 10

11 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 11 of 13 applicant knew or should have known of the materiality of the information; and (3) the applicant has not provided a credible explanation for the withholding ). Again, the court reiterates that it will ultimately be Corning s burden to prove each of these elements by clear and convincing evidence, see Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1290, but, at this stage, the defense has been sufficiently alleged. On a similar note, while PPC spends the bulk of its opposition challenging the merits of Corning s proposed defense, the court is disinclined to deny the amendment on that basis at this juncture. See Tailored Lighting, 255 F.R.D. at 348. While PPC maintains that the record reflects its disclosure of the existence of the 446 patent during the reexaminations of the patents in suit, (Dkt. No. 224 at 14-16), Corning has alleged that PPC failed to disclose the ultimate resolution of the 446 patent s IPR proceeding and the PTO s decision questioning the validity thereof, not simply the existence of the 446 patent, (Dkt. No. 223, Attach , 154, 158, 167, 170, 175, 189). PPC contends, by way of affidavits from the individuals who participated in the reexaminations, that it did in fact disclose this information orally to the PTO examiners. (Dkt. No. 224 at 15-16; Dkt. No. 224, Attach. 1 8; Dkt. No. 224, Attach. 2 4.) 11

12 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 12 of 13 However, in determining the futility of the proposed amendments, Corning s properly pleaded factual allegations are entitled to the assumption of truth, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in its favor, see Louis Chung v. City Univ. of N.Y., No CV, 2015 WL , at *1 (2d Cir. Mar. 31, 2015) ( On... a motion [to amend], the Court accepts all factual allegations in the [pleading] as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the [moving party] s favor. ); Hines v. City of Albany, 542 F. Supp. 2d 218, 224 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) ( [A] district court may not deny a motion for leave to amend a pleading when said pleading is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ). While PPC may ultimately be able to prove that it did make such disclosures, resolving questions of fact like this one is not proper at this stage. See Sweet v. Serpa, No. 91-CV-5, 1993 WL 18938, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 1993) ( [S]ubstantive issues are not to be considered on a motion to amend the pleadings. ); T & N plc v. Fred S. James & Co. of N.Y., Inc., No. 89 Civ. 7688, 1991 WL , at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 1991) (noting that a party is not required to establish a probability it would prevail on the merits in order for the court to grant its motion to amend ). Accordingly, Corning s motion to amend/supplement 12

13 Case 5:11-cv GLS-DEP Document 228 Filed 05/20/15 Page 13 of 13 its answer is granted. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Corning s motion seeking leave to file an amended answer (Dkt. No. 223) is GRANTED and Corning is directed to file its amended pleading in accordance with N.D.N.Y. L.R. 7.1(a)(4); and it is further ORDERED that, upon completion of the jury trial in this matter, which remains scheduled to begin on July 20, 2015, the parties contact Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles for further proceedings on the inequitable conduct defense, if necessary; and it is further the parties. ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to IT IS SO ORDERED. May 20, 2015 Albany, New York 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation et al v. Hitachi Ltd et al Doc. 101 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, METCO BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

More information

Case 2:13-cv KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044

Case 2:13-cv KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044 Case 2:13-cv-01276-KAM-AKT Document 124 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2044 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------- SPEEDFIT LLC and AUREL

More information

, -1512, -1513, -1514, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

, -1512, -1513, -1514, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT THERASENSE, INC. (now known as Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.) and ABBOTT LABORATORIES, v. Plaintiff-Appellants,

More information

US Patent Prosecution Duty to Disclose

US Patent Prosecution Duty to Disclose July 12, 2016 Terri Shieh-Newton, Member Therasense v. Becton Dickinson & Co., (Fed. Cir. en banc May 25, 2011) Federal Circuit en banc established new standards for establishing both 10 materiality and

More information

Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct

Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct PRESENTATION TITLE Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct David Hall, Counsel dhall@kilpatricktownsend.com Megan Chung, Senior Associate mchung@kilpatricktownsend.com

More information

Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up

Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up 1 Panelist Dr. Rouget F. (Ric) Henschel, Partner, Chemical, Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Practice, and Co-Chair, Life Sciences Industry Team, Foley & Lardner Sven

More information

Case 1:14-cv ML-LDA Document 26 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 285 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Case 1:14-cv ML-LDA Document 26 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 285 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Case 1:14-cv-00182-ML-LDA Document 26 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 285 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND CLARK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 14-182-ML NAVIGATOR

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case 1:09-cv-00135-JAB-JEP Document 248 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASICS AMERICA CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim-

More information

Case 3:07-cv Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 3:07-cv Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION Case 3:07-cv-00615 Document 38 Filed 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DONALD KRAUSE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-0615-L v.

More information

LITIGATION ISSUES RELEVANT TO PATENT PROSECUTION THE DEFENSE OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT. Jeanne C. Curtis Brandon H. Stroy Ramya Kasthuri Conor McDonough

LITIGATION ISSUES RELEVANT TO PATENT PROSECUTION THE DEFENSE OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT. Jeanne C. Curtis Brandon H. Stroy Ramya Kasthuri Conor McDonough LITIGATION ISSUES RELEVANT TO PATENT PROSECUTION THE DEFENSE OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT Jeanne C. Curtis Brandon H. Stroy Ramya Kasthuri Conor McDonough Ropes & Gray LLP Copyright 2010-2011. The views expressed

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ARMACELL LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13cv896 ) AEROFLEX USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BEATY,

More information

18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter Article

18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter Article 18 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 269 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Winter 2010 Article RESOLVING INEQUITABLE CONDUCT CLAIMS ACCORDING TO KINGSDOWN Brett J. Thompsen a1 Copyright (c) 2010 Intellectual

More information

Case 1:12-cv GMS Document 34 Filed 07/02/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1399

Case 1:12-cv GMS Document 34 Filed 07/02/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1399 Case 1:12-cv-01744-GMS Document 34 Filed 07/02/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1399 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NESTE OIL OYJ, v. Plaintiff, DYNAMIC FUELS, LLC, SYNTROLEUM

More information

OPINION AND ORDER. Securities Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the

OPINION AND ORDER. Securities Class Action Complaint (Complaint) pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the ORIGI NAL ' Case 1:05-cv-05323-LTS Document 62 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 1 of 14 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: x DATE FILED: D 7/,V/

More information

Federal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct

Federal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct Federal Circuit Tightens Standards for Inequitable Conduct SUMMARY On May 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in Therasense, Inc.

More information

USDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED~;AUG

USDCSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED~;AUG Case 1:12-cv-07887-AJN Document 20 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------)( ALE)( AND

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. v. : Case No. 2:08-cv-31 ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. v. : Case No. 2:08-cv-31 ORDER Arnold v. City of Columbus Doc. 70 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Yolanda Arnold, : Plaintiff, : v. : Case No. 2:08-cv-31 City of Columbus, : JUDGE

More information

Plaintiff, : OPINION AND ORDER 04 Civ (LTS) (GWG) -v.- :

Plaintiff, : OPINION AND ORDER 04 Civ (LTS) (GWG) -v.- : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X ANDREW YOUNG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, : Plaintiff,

More information

COMMENT THE EXERGEN AND THERASENSE EFFECTS

COMMENT THE EXERGEN AND THERASENSE EFFECTS COMMENT THE EXERGEN AND THERASENSE EFFECTS Robert D. Swanson* This Comment empirically investigates the doctrine of inequitable conduct in patent law. Inequitable conduct is a defense to patent infringement

More information

Case 4:16-cv JSW Document 32 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:16-cv JSW Document 32 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed /0/ Page of NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 DAVID R. REED, v. Plaintiff, KRON/IBEW LOCAL PENSION PLAN, et al., Defendants.

More information

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8 Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone

More information

4:12-cv GAD-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 11/02/12 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 900 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

4:12-cv GAD-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 11/02/12 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 900 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 4:12-cv-11758-GAD-MKM Doc # 50 Filed 11/02/12 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 900 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION EVERLIGHT ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and EMCORE CORPORATION, Civil

More information

Case 8:14-cv VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:14-cv VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:14-cv-01617-VMC-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 146 SOBEK THERAPEUTICS, LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:14-cv-1617-T-33TBM

More information

Afinding of inequitable conduct can have drastic

Afinding of inequitable conduct can have drastic Afinding of inequitable conduct can have drastic consequences for a patent holder. Unlike invalidity, which affects only asserted patent claims, inequitable conduct renders an entire patent (and potentially

More information

THE U.S. DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AS APPLIED TO U.S. AND FOREIGN OFFICE ACTIONS

THE U.S. DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AS APPLIED TO U.S. AND FOREIGN OFFICE ACTIONS THE U.S. DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AS APPLIED TO U.S. AND FOREIGN OFFICE ACTIONS October 9, 2009 Recent case law establishes that patentees are obligated to bring many Office Actions issued in related U.S. Patent

More information

Case 1:04-cv GTE-DRH Document 50 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 12

Case 1:04-cv GTE-DRH Document 50 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 12 Case 1:04-cv-00342-GTE-DRH Document 50 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RICKY RAY QUEEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 04-CV-342 (FJS/DRH) INTERNATIONAL PAPER

More information

Case 1:12-cv RJD-RLM Document 89 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Case 1:12-cv RJD-RLM Document 89 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case 1:12-cv-04869-RJD-RLM Document 89 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1416 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x

More information

Case 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs,

Case 1:16-cv JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 X : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : X. Plaintiffs, Case 116-cv-03852-JPO Document 75 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- COMCAST CORPORATION,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA LaFlamme et al v. Safeway Inc. Doc. 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 KAY LAFLAMME and ROBERT ) LAFLAMME, ) ) :0-cv-001-ECR-VPC Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) SAFEWAY, INC.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Case:-mc-00-RS Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PERSONAL AUDIO LLC, Plaintiff, v. TOGI ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and others, Defendants.

More information

U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act

U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act August 15, 2011 John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson What s New in 2011? Patent Law Reform is high on Congressional agenda A desire to legislate Bipartisan Patent

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BBP SUB I LP, Appellant V. JOHN DI TUCCI, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BBP SUB I LP, Appellant V. JOHN DI TUCCI, Appellee AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 29, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01523-CV BBP SUB I LP, Appellant V. JOHN DI TUCCI, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER e-watch Inc. v. Avigilon Corporation Doc. 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION e-watch INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0347 AVIGILON CORPORATION,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V.,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V., Case: 16-1346 Document: 105 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2016-1346 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee.

More information

America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition

America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition Dave Cochran Jones Day Cleveland December 6, 2012 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. HID Global Corp., et al. v. Farpointe Data, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. HID Global Corp., et al. v. Farpointe Data, Inc., et al. Present: The Honorable James V. Selna Karla J. Tunis Deputy Clerk Not Present Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Proceedings: (IN

More information

: : : : : : : : : : x. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this action, inter

: : : : : : : : : : x. Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, bring this action, inter -SMG Yahraes et al v. Restaurant Associates Events Corp. et al Doc. 112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- x

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 2:14-cv-02540-RGK-RZ Document 40 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:293 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 14-2540-RGK (RZx) Date August

More information

Case 1:11-mc RLW Document 1 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-mc RLW Document 1 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:11-mc-00295-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM Case No. Nokia Corporation, Apple Inc.,

More information

Case 3:15-cv HSG Document 67 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-cv HSG Document 67 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-hsg Document Filed /0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALIPHCOM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FITBIT, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-hsg ORDER GRANTING MOTION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LINDA PERRYMENT, Plaintiff, v. SKY CHEFS, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-kaw ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PARTIALLY DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S

More information

MANAGING INEQUITABLE CONDUCT BY LEGISLATION

MANAGING INEQUITABLE CONDUCT BY LEGISLATION MANAGING INEQUITABLE CONDUCT BY LEGISLATION AND/OR REGULATION * Alan J. Kasper ** I. Introduction... 95 A. Development of Inequitable Conduct in the Federal Circuit... 96 B. Consideration of Inequitable

More information

DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE AND INEQUITABLE CONDUCT RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Abraham J. Rosner Sughrue Mion, PLLC In addition to the defenses of non-infringement and invalidity, an alleged infringer may

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, ALPHAPET INC., INDORAMA HOLDINGS ROTTERDAM B.V., INDORAMA POLYMERS ROTTERDAM B.V., INDORAMA POLYMERS

More information

: : Plaintiff, : : : : : Defendant. : This case embodies a striking abuse of the federal removal statute by

: : Plaintiff, : : : : : Defendant. : This case embodies a striking abuse of the federal removal statute by UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------X LASTONIA LEVISTON, Plaintiff, v. CURTIS JAMES JACKSON, III, a/k/a 50 CENT, Defendant. ----------------------------------------------------

More information

Case 7:12-cv KMK Document 177 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 7:12-cv KMK Document 177 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 7 Case 7:12-cv-06421-KMK Document 177 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, EDWARD BRONSON; E-LIONHEART ASSOCIATES,

More information

1.2 Address of the Administrative Law Judge

1.2 Address of the Administrative Law Judge 1. Rules of General Applicability 1.1 Definitions 1.1.1 File JUDGE PENDER S GROUND RULES The term file refers to something filed with the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in accordance with 210.4(i).

More information

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 62 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 62 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 3:06-cv-02319-JAP-TJB Document 62 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : TRENTON METROPOLITAN AREA : LOCAL OF THE AMERICAN

More information

Case 3:08-cv BHS Document 217 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Case 3:08-cv BHS Document 217 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Case :0-cv-0-BHS Document Filed /0/ Page of The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle 0 CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs, THURSTON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, et al., Defendants.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1483 INLAND STEEL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LTV STEEL COMPANY, Defendant, and USX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Jonathan S. Quinn, Sachnoff

More information

Case 1:14-cv JGK Document 21 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 12. Plaintiff, Defendants. The plaintiff Stanley Wolfson brought this action against

Case 1:14-cv JGK Document 21 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 12. Plaintiff, Defendants. The plaintiff Stanley Wolfson brought this action against Case 1:14-cv-07367-JGK Document 21 Filed 07/07/15 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STANLEY WOLFSON, Plaintiff, 14 Cv. 7367 (JGK) - against - OPINION AND ORDER TODD

More information

Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform

Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform October 11, 2011 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249 (technical name of the bill) on June

More information

Case 1:16-cv MGC Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2016 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:16-cv MGC Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2016 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:16-cv-20960-MGC Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/21/2016 Page 1 of 6 MULTISPORTS USA, a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs. THEHUT.COM LIMITED, a foreign company, and MAMA MIO US, INC., a Delaware

More information

United States District Court

United States District Court Case :0-cv-0-WHA Document Filed 0//00 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, v. Plaintiff, DENISE RICKETTS,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. v. Case No: 6:15-cv-1824-Orl-41GJK ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION. v. Case No: 6:15-cv-1824-Orl-41GJK ORDER Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Caring First, Inc. et al Doc. 107 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 2:09-CV-271 OPINION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 2:09-CV-271 OPINION Pioneer Surgical Technology, Inc. v. Vikingcraft Spine, Inc. et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION PIONEER SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff,

More information

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 0:16-cv-61856-WPD Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2017 Page 1 of 11 JENNIFER SANDOVAL, vs. Plaintiff, RONALD R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.L., SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 05-cv-00480-MSK-CBS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH P. NACCHIO, ROBERT WOODRUFF, AFSHIN MOHEBBI,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MARY ELLE FASHIONS, INC., d/b/a MERIDIAN ELECTRIC, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 4:15 CV 855 RWS JASCO PRODUCTS CO., LLC, Defendant.

More information

Case 2:12-cv WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071

Case 2:12-cv WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071 Case 2:12-cv-00147-WCB Document 290 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 11071 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SABATINO BIANCO, M.D., Plaintiff,

More information

Case 1:10-cv AKH Document 68 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 12. Plaintiff, Defendant.

Case 1:10-cv AKH Document 68 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 12. Plaintiff, Defendant. Case 1:10-cv-03864-AKH Document 68 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARY K. JONES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ECF

More information

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes

More information

Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger

Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger mofo.com Inter Partes Review Key distinctive features over inter partes reexamination: Limited Duration Limited Amendment by Patent

More information

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly. BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case 1:11-cv-02964-TCB Document 72 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BARCO, N.V. and BARCO, INC., v. Plaintiffs, EIZO

More information

Inequitable Conduct as a Defense to Patent Infringement: What will the Effect of the Federal Circuit s Decision in Therasense, Inc. Have?

Inequitable Conduct as a Defense to Patent Infringement: What will the Effect of the Federal Circuit s Decision in Therasense, Inc. Have? Seton Hall University erepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 5-1-2013 Inequitable Conduct as a Defense to Patent Infringement: What will the Effect of the Federal Circuit

More information

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059

More information

5:15-CV-1536 (LEK/TWD) MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER. against Defendants Joseph G. Joey DeMaio; Circle Song Music, LLC; God of Thunder

5:15-CV-1536 (LEK/TWD) MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER. against Defendants Joseph G. Joey DeMaio; Circle Song Music, LLC; God of Thunder Palomo v. DeMaio et al Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SERGIO FRANCISCO PUEBLA PALOMO, Plaintiff, -against- 5:15-CV-1536 (LEK/TWD) JOSEPH G. JOEY DEMAIO, et al., Defendants.

More information

Case 4:12-cv O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824

Case 4:12-cv O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824 Case 4:12-cv-00546-O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION WILLIAMS-PYRO, INC., v. Plaintiff, WARREN

More information

In 2009, when Robert Bosch, LLC introduced a competing automotive wheel

In 2009, when Robert Bosch, LLC introduced a competing automotive wheel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SNAP-ON INC., v. Plaintiff, ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, ROBERT BOSCH, GMBH, and BEISSBARTH GMBH, No. 09 CV 6914 Judge Manish S.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER & REASONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER & REASONS Shields v. Dolgencorp, LLC Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LATRICIA SHIELDS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-1826 DOLGENCORP, LLC & COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC. SECTION

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 1:13-cv-1364 -v- ) ) HONORABLE PAUL L. MALONEY TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS, CORP., )

More information

Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8. : Plaintiffs, : : : Defendants. :

Case 1:13-cv LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8. : Plaintiffs, : : : Defendants. : Case 113-cv-01787-LGS Document 20 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X BLOOMBERG, L.P.,

More information

Case 2:10-cv SJF -ETB Document 16 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:10-cv SJF -ETB Document 16 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 9 Case 2:10-cv-00529-SJF -ETB Document 16 Filed 09/20/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------X

More information

Case 1:16-cv ARR-RLM Document 34 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 438

Case 1:16-cv ARR-RLM Document 34 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 438 Case 116-cv-01185-ARR-RLM Document 34 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID # 438 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

Case 1:13-cv JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:13-cv JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case 1:13-cv-21525-JIC Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2014 Page 1 of 9 LESLIE REILLY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Presently before the Court is Defendants Connecticut General

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Presently before the Court is Defendants Connecticut General Mountain View Surgical Center v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company et al Doc. 1 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW SURGICAL CENTER, a California

More information

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist

Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist For cases originally filed in federal court, is there an anchor claim, over which the court has personal jurisdiction, venue, and subject matter jurisdiction? If not,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN DECISION AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ILLUMINATION MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 10-C-1120 ALAN RUUD, CHRISTOPHER RUUD, and RUUD LIGHTING, Defendants. DECISION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case 1:15-cv-00742-WO-JLW Document 32 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CARRIE HUTSON, JEANNA SIMMONS, ) and JENIFER SWANNER, ) individually

More information

Case 1:14-cv LTS Document 41 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:14-cv LTS Document 41 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 10 Case 1:14-cv-08597-LTS Document 41 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------x WALLACE WOOD PROPERTIES,

More information

Case: 1:12-cv WAL-GWC Document #: 9 Filed: 01/04/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST.

Case: 1:12-cv WAL-GWC Document #: 9 Filed: 01/04/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. Case: 1:12-cv-00105-WAL-GWC Document #: 9 Filed: 01/04/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX LARRY WILLIAMS and LnL PUBLISHING, INC CIVIL NO. 105/2012 v. Plaintiffs,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 1 PATRICIA BUTLER and WESLEY BUTLER, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs, HARVEST MANAGEMENT SUB, LLC d/b/a HOLIDAY RETIREMENT, Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LEGEND3D, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LEGEND3D, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper No. 79 Date Entered: December 8, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LEGEND3D, INC., Petitioner, v. PRIME FOCUS CREATIVE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CRYAN'S ALE HOUSE & GRILL et al Doc. 45 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE CIVIL ACTION NO.

More information

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 27 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 27 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 9 Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed /0/0 Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 (0) - telephone

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Petitioner, v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Petitioner, v. GENENTECH, INC. Patent Owner. U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 Inter

More information

Before the Court is defendant Clorox Company s motion for attorneys fees under 35

Before the Court is defendant Clorox Company s motion for attorneys fees under 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------- X AUTO-KAPS, LLC, Plaintiff, - against - CLOROX COMPANY, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Petitioner, v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. Petitioner, v. GENENTECH, INC. Patent Owner. U.S. Patent No. 6,407,213 Inter

More information

Case 3:06-cv FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:06-cv FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Case 3:06-cv-02304-FLW-JJH Document 31 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY V. MANE FILS S.A., : Civil Action No. 06-2304 (FLW) : Plaintiff, : : v. : : M E

More information

Case 8:12-cv JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:12-cv JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:12-cv-00557-JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 BURTON W. WIAND, as Court-Appointed Receiver for Scoop Real Estate, L.P., et al. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OVERLAND STORAGE, INC., Plaintiff, vs. BTD AG (GERMANY), et al.; SPECTRA LOGIC CORPORATION; and PIVOTSTOR, LLC, Defendants. CASE NOS.

More information

The plaintiff, the Gameologist Group, LLC ( Gameologist or. the plaintiff ), brought this action against the defendants,

The plaintiff, the Gameologist Group, LLC ( Gameologist or. the plaintiff ), brought this action against the defendants, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE GAMEOLOGIST GROUP, LLC, - against - Plaintiff, SCIENTIFIC GAMES INTERNATIONAL, INC., and SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION, INC., 09 Civ. 6261

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 8:14-cv-00414-JVS-RNB Document 51 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:495 Present: The Honorable James V. Selna Karla J. Tunis Deputy Clerk Not Present Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

More information

FORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG)

FORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG) FORMATION OF CONTRACT INTENTION TO BE BOUND (ART. 14 CISG) - RELEVANCE OF PRACTICES BETWEEN THE PARTIES (ART. 8(2) & (3) CISG) CHOICE-OF-LAW CLAUSE - AMOUNTING TO TERM MATERIALLY ALTERING ORIGINAL OFFER

More information

Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review

Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter

More information

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

11th Annual Patent Law Institute INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at

More information

Paper Entered: September 20, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: September 20, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 571-272-7822 Entered: September 20, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC.,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 17-cv-00087 (CRC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION New York

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 SONIX TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, KENJI YOSHIDA and GRID IP, PTE., LTD., Defendant. Case No.: 1cv0-CAB-DHB ORDER GRANTING

More information