Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Precite, Inc. v. American Laser Enterprises, LLC

Case Name: Precite, Inc. v. American Laser Enterprises, LLC
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11260-AC-LJM
Date Filed: 3/21/2012
Judge: Hon. Avern C. Cohn
Status: Closed

            Precite, Inc. filed for suit against American Laser Enterprises, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,489,888 (“the ‘888 patent”) entitled “For capacitive distance measurement.” The ‘888 patent generally relates to a sensor system for contactless measuring of the distance between a sensor body and an object. On July 10, 2012, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its case against Defendant without prejudice. 

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Roll-Rite, LLC v. Shur-Co, LLC

Case Name: Roll-Rite, LLC v. Shur-Co, LLC
Docket Number: 1:2012-cv-11150-TLL-CEB
Date Filed: 3/14/2012
Judge: Hon. Thomas L. Ludington
Status: Pending

Roll-Rite, LLC filed suit against Shur-Co, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,829,819 (“the ‘819 patent”) entitled “Electric Tarp System for Truck Bed.” The ‘819 patent generally relates to a direct-drive actuator assembly for actuating a tarp spool. Specifically, Roll-Rite alleged that Shur-Co sold products covered by the patent without its permission. Shur-Co denied such allegations and counterclaim stating that Roll-Rite failed to comply with one or more conditions for patentability and for false patent marking. 

On January 13, 2014, Shur-Co filed a motion for summary judgment on non-infringement of the ‘819 patent and no damages based on Roll-Rite’s alleged lost sales of unpatented gear motors. The court denied Shur-Co’s motion. Currently, the case is still pending.

On January 13, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.  However, on May 29, 2014, the Honorable Thomas L. Ludington denied the motion for summary judgment.  Defendant alleged two grounds for summary judgment: first Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim of infringement because the defendant’s product does not meet all the requirements of the claim construction, and second, that Roll-Rite is not entitled to lost profits.  The Judge determined that Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on these claims. The court found that there exists a more than reasonable method of lost product calculations and that there exists a reasonable question of fact in regards to whether the 4500 Series has a brake, per the claim construction and facts of the case. On September 16, 2014, the case was dismissed with prejudice as the parties had entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Proprietary Wellness, LLC v. Primordial Performance, LLC et al

Case Name: Proprietary Wellness, LLC v. Primordial Performance, LLC et al
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11072-DML-PJK
Date Filed: 3/9/2012
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Closed

            Proprietary Wellness filed suit against Primordial Performance, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,084,446 (“the ‘446 patent”) entitled “Use of DHEA Derivatives for Enhancing Physical Performance.” The ‘446 patent generally relates to the use of DHEA derivatives for anti-aging benefits, decreasing body weight, reducing adipose tissue, and increasing endurance. Specifically, Proprietary Wellness alleged that Primordial Performance continued to distribute and sell its product without its authorization and failed to make royalty payments per an earlier agreement. However, on May 5th, 2012, the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the case as the parties had entered into a settlement agreement on April 30, 2012. In the settlement agreement, Primordial Performance admitted to infringement and agreed to pay $40,000.00 to satisfy outstanding royalties on the 2008 and 2010 licensing agreements.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Innovative Global Systems LLC v. OnStar, LLC

Case Name: Innovative Global Systems LLC v. OnStar, LLC
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11024-PJD-RSW
Date Filed: 3/7/2012
Judge: Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Status: Closed

Innovative Global Systems, LLC (the “Plaintiff”) filed suit against OnStar, LLC., ATX Group, Inc., Xirgo Technologies, LLC., Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and Power Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for patent infringement of the following five patents (collectively the “patents-in-suit”): 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,608,554 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Data Communication between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal” 2) U.S. Patent No. 6,411,203 entitled “Apparatus and Method for Data Communication Between Heavy Duty Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal,” 3) U.S. Patent No. 6,744,352 entitled “System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, between Portions of Vehicle and other Portions of Vehicle, between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network”, 4) U.S. Patent No. 7,015,800 entitled “System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication Between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, Between Portions of Vehicle and Other Portions of Vehicle, Between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network”, 5) U.S. Patent No. 7,449,993 entitled “System, Apparatus and Methods for Data Communication Between Vehicle and Remote Data Communication Terminal, Between Portions of Vehicle and Other Portions of Vehicle, Between Two or More Vehicles, and Between Vehicle and Communications Network” The patents-in-suit generally relate to apparatuses and method for providing data communication associated with vehicles. On October 29, 2012 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit with prejudice against Defendants.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

RSR Sales, Incorpoated v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. et al

Case Name: RSR Sales, Incorporated v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-10719-GAD-MKM
Date Filed: 2/16/2012
Judge: Hon. Gershwin Drain
Status: Closed

            RSR Sales filed suit against Lowe’s for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,252,889 (“the ‘889 patent”), entitled “Glow-in-the-Dark Glazing Globes and Other Ornaments Particularly for Gardens”, for copyright infringement of U.S. Copyright Reg. Nos. TXul-252-249 and VA1-656-194, and for a violation of the Lanham act. The ‘889 patent generally relates to a method of fabricating glow-in-the-dark glazing globes or other objects. Lowe’s filed numerous motions attempting to dismiss the case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and tried to remove the state law claims from suit, which were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the case on November 19, 2013.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Tribe7 Lacrosse, LLC

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Tribe7 Lacrosse, LLC
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-10704-AJT-MJH
Date Filed: 2/16/2012
Judge: Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow
Status: Closed

Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit against Tribe7 Lacrosse for patent infringement of six of the following Warrior Sports’ patents: U.S. Patent 7,900,275 (“the ‘275 patent”) entitled “Protective Sports Glove With Floating Cuff Portion;” U.S. Patent 7,636,951 (“the ’951 patent”), entitled “Protective Sports Glove With Floating Cuff Portion;” U.S. Patent 7,318,241 (“the ’241 patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove having Improved Flexibility and Breathability;” U.S. Patent 7,117,540 (“the ‘540 patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove having Improved Flexibility and Breathability;” U.S. Patent 6,813,780 (“the ‘780 patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove having Improved Flexibility and Breathability;” and US Patent 6,550,069 (“the ‘690 patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove Having Improved Flexibility and Breathability” (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit generally relate to protective sports gloves which provide increased flexibility and protection for a wearer’s hand, wrist, and forearm. Specifically, Warrior Sports alleged that Tribe7 Lacrosse had willfully sold products covered by the patents-in-suit in its stores without Warrior’s consent. On April 16, 2013, the Warrior Sports voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Crorey Creations, Inc. v. Target Corporation

Case Name: Crorey Creations, Inc. v. Target Corporation
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-10712-DML-MJH
Date Filed: 2/16/2012
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Closed

Crorey Creations filed suit against Target Corporation for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,946,631 (“the ‘631 patent”) entitled “Friendship Bracelet Maker.” The ‘631 patent generally relates to a device and kit for making knotted string accessories. The case was eventually voluntarily dismissed by both parties with prejudice.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Schrader-Bridgeport International Inc. et al v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.

Case Name: Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. et al v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-10715-SJM-MJH
Date Filed: 2/16/2012
Judge: Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III
Status: Pending

Schrader-Bridgeport and Schrader Electronics (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), filed suit against Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. (“Defendant”) asserting that the Defendant had violated U.S. Patent No. 7,518,495 (“the ‘495 patent”) entitled “Universal Tire Pressure Monitor”. The ‘495 patent generally describes a monitor for use in a remote tire pressure monitoring system for the vehicle. Continental proceeded to file a counterclaim alleging infringement of four of Continental’s patents. Separate Markman hearings were held for the original complaint and counterclaim. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment of “no validity” of the ‘495 patent and a motion for partial summary judgment of literal infringement regarding the ‘495 patent. While the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment for invalidity of the ‘495 patent and a motion for partial summary judgment related to literal infringement. A hearing was held on April 28, 2014 for all motions relating to summary judgment.

The orders related to such motions are under seal, however, according to court records, the court granted the sealed motion for summary judgment of invalidity in part for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, denied the motion for partial summary judgment of “no invalidity,” and denied the motion for partial summary judgment of literal infringement as moot based on the erroneous Lack of Enablement judgment. On June 17, 2014, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. An appeal was filed on July 7, 2014 by Plaintiffs appealing rulings on the summary judgment motions. As of July 8, 2014, a motion to extend time to file motions for attorney fees by the Defendant state that the Plaintiff and Defendant were in settlement discussions. On March 18, 2015, Plaintiffs with the consent of Defendant filed a motion for vacatur and dismissal of all claims with prejudice and closure of the action subject to the terms of a settlement agreement. On March 31, 2015, Plaintiffs’ motion was granted and an order was issued by the Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III dismissing the claims with prejudice.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Easton-Bell Sports, Inc.

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Easton-Bell Sports, Inc.
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-10325-MAG-MJH
Date Filed: 1/25/2012
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit against Easton-Bell Sports for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 38,216 (“the ‘216 patent”), entitled “Scooped Lacrosse Head.” The ‘216 patent generally relates to a lacrosse stick head with a curved or scooped configuration to enhance or facilitate play of lacrosse. Ultimately, the case was voluntarily dismissed by both parties, with prejudice.  

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Rockwell Automation Technologies, Incorporated v. Secure Crossing Research and Development Incorporated

Case Name: Rockwell Automation Technologies, Incorporated v. Secure Crossing Research and Development Incorporated
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-10274-GCS-MKM
Date Filed: 1/20/2012
Judge: Hon. George Caram Steeh
Status: Closed

            Rockwell Automation Technologies filed suit against Secure Crossing Research and Development, Inc. for patent infringement asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,990,967 (“the ‘967 patent”), entitled “Firewall Method and Apparatus for Industrial Systems.” The ‘967 patent generally relates to a method which gives access control information for resources. On April 26, 2013, both parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of the case, without prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ fees to any party.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Cataldo v. Concrete Systems, Incorporated

Case Name: Cataldo v. Concrete Systems, Incorporated
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-10027-PDB-MAR
Date Filed: 1/4/2012
Judge: Hon. Paul D. Borman
Status: Closed

On January 4, 2012, Michael Cataldo (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Concrete Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,865,005 (“the ‘005 patent”) entitled “Prefabricated Concrete Retaining Wall.”  The ‘005 patent generally relates to a modular retaining wall made of prefabricate concrete elements and a method for constructing the modular retaining wall in a straight or drafted configuration. Ultimately, on January 17, 2012, the case was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Finisar Corp. v. Cheetah Omni, LLC

Case Name: Finisar Corp. v. Cheetah Omni, LLC
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-15625-PDB-MKM
Date Filed: 12/23/2011
Judge: Hon. Paul D. Borman
Status: Closed

            Finisar Corporation filed suit against Cheetah Omni, LLC seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the following patents: 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,888,661 (“the ’661 Patent”), entitled “Square filter function tunable optical devices,” 2) U.S. Patent No. 6,847,479 (“the ’479 Patent”), entitled “Variable blazed grating,” 3) U.S. Patent No. 6,445,502  (“the ’502 Patent”), entitled “Variable blazed grating,” and 4) U.S. Patent No. 6,721,473 (“the ’473 Patent”), entitled “Variable blazed grating based signal processing.” Ultimately, on April 4, 2014, the suit was dismissed with prejudice by the parties.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Hitkansut, LLC et al. v. UT-Battelle, LLC

Case Name: Hitkansut, LLC et al. v. UT-Battelle, LLC
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-15598-NGE-MAR
Date Filed: 12/21/2011
Judge: Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
Status: Closed
Disclaimer: Dickinson Wright PLLC represents the Plaintiffs in this matter

            Hitkansut, LLC and Aceledyne Technologies, Ltd., LCC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against UT-Battelle, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,175,722 (“the ‘722 Patent”), entitled “Concurrently applying heat and vibration; oscillation.” The ‘722 Patent generally relates to methods for modifying a physical property of a structure, such as reducing or relieving internal stress, in which multiple energy sources are concurrently applied to the structure to change the physical property of interest in an accelerated fashion. The ‘722 Patent is also known as the “Walker Process” and is utilized in connection with automotive components.

The Plaintiffs demanded a jury trial and requested declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs determined that the proper forum for this lawsuit was the United States Court of Federal Claims and on May 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice to assert the claims of infringement in another action.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Federal-Mogul Corp. et al. v. NJT Enterprises et al.

Case Name: Federal-Mogul Corp. et al. v. NJT Enterprises et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-15480-MOB-RSW
Date Filed: 12/14/2011
Judge: Hon. Marianne O. Battani
Status: Pending

            Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul World Wide, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against NJT Enterprises and JVIS-USA, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,234,439 (“the ‘439 Patent”), entitled “Illuminated Cup Holder Assembly.”  The Plaintiffs also alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The case is currently pending.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Extang Corp. v. Andy’s Auto Sport

Case Name: Extang Corp. v. Andy's Auto Sport
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-15305-PJD-MAR
Date Filed: 12/02/2011
Judge: Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Status: Closed

            Extang Corporation filed suit against Andy’s Auto Sport for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,893,073 (“the ‘073 Patent”). The ‘073 Patent generally relates to a tonneau cover clamp. Extang Corp. demanded a jury trial and requested declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. On January 4, 2012, the Extang Corp. voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Extang Corp. et al. v. U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.

Case Name: Extang Corp. et al. v. U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-15265-BAF-LJM
Date Filed: 11/30/2011
Judge:  Hon. Bernard A. Friedman
Status: Closed

            Extang Corporation and Advantage Truck Accessories (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. for two patents: 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,893,073 and 2) U.S. Patent No. 7,334,830 both relating to Tonneau Covers. The Plaintiffs demanded a jury trial and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant voluntarily dismissed the action.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

The Medicines Company v. Sun Pharma Global FZE et al.

Case Name: The Medicines Company v. Sun Pharma Global FZE et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-15175-BAF-RSW
Date Filed: 11/23/2011
Judge: Hon. Bernard A. Friedman
Status: Closed

            The Medicines Company (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Sun Pharma Global FZE, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343 both entitled “Pharmaceutical Formulations of Bivalirudin and Processes of Making the Same.” Defendants allegedly sought approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to manufacture and sell a generic product before the expiration of Plaintiff’s patents. On April 26, 2012, the court dismissed the case after the Plaintiff failed to file a timely executed service of summons and complaint.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Drew Technologies, Inc. v. Robert Bosch, LLC

Case Name: Drew Technologies, Inc. v. Robert Bosch, LLC
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-15068-RHC-MAR
Date Filed: 11/16/2011
Judge: Hon. Robert H. Cleland
Status: Closed

            Drew Technologies, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) sought a declaratory judgment against Robert Bosch, LLC (“Defendant”) stating that Plaintiff did not infringe Defendant’s U.S. Patent No. 6,782,313 (“the ‘313 Patent”), entitled “Diagnostic Test Device for Motor Vehicle with Programmable Control Devices.”           

            The Defendant filed a motion to transfer the suit to the Central District of California on January 31, 2012, however, shortly after, the suit was transferred back to the Eastern District of Michigan (“E.D. Mich.”) after the California court granted a motion brought by the Plaintiff to transfer venue back to E.D. Mich. Multiple telephone conference were scheduled and held. The court and parties discussed whether it was best to consolidated this case with a related suit, Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On, Inc., Case Number 12-11503. As a result, Counsel for the parties were to reach an agreement to amend the pleadings to allow the parties to pursue competing causes of action in a single case as well as prepare a proposed discovery plan and trial schedule. The court noted that once the pleadings are finalized that the court anticipates denying a pending motion as moot to reopen tes case. As such, this case is closed.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Dri-Design, LLC v. Metal Sales & Service, Inc.

Case Name: Dri-Design, LLC v. Metal Sales & Service, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-14993-AC-LJM
Date Filed: 11/11/2011
Judge: Hon. Avern Cohn
Status: Closed

            Dri-Design, LLC filed suit against Metal Sales & Service, Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,694,694. The patent is entitled “Exterior Panel” and generally relates to a building and an exterior or interior wall of the building.. The Plaintiff demanded a jury trial and requested monetary and injunctive relief. On February 9, 2012, the Dri-Design voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Cinpres Gas Injection, Ltd. v. BMW of North America, LLC

Case Name: Cinpres Gas Injection, Ltd. v. BMW of North America, LLC
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-14990-SFC-MKM
Date Filed: 11/11/2011
Judge: Hon. Sean F. Cox
Status: Closed

            Cinpres Gas Injection, Ltd. filed suit against BMW of North America, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,458,846 (“the ‘846 Patent”), 5,643,527 (“the ‘527 Patent”), and 6,716,387 (“the ‘387 Patent”). The ‘846 Patent and ‘527 Patent generally relate to method of injection molding and the ‘387 Patent generally relates to a process for assisted molding of hollow articles. Ultimately, On June 13, 2012, the court dismissed the suit after the parties resolved the action through a License and Settlement Agreement.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

TherOx, Inc. et al. v. Blissfield Manufacturing Company et al.

Case Name: TherOx, Inc. et al. v. Blissfield Manufacturing Company et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-14917-NGE-MJH
Date Filed: 11/08/2011
Judge: Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
Status: Closed

The Plaintiffs, TherOx, Inc. and DynamOx, Inc., alleged patent and trademark infringement by the Defendant, Blissfield Manufacturing Company et al. of the following U.S. Patent Nos. and Trademark: 1) 5,569,180 (“the ‘180 Patent”), entitled “Method for Delivering a Gas-Supersaturated Fluid to a Gas-Depleted Site and Use Thereof,” 2) 5,735,934 (“the ‘934 Patent”) entitled “Method for Delivering a Gas-Supersaturated Fluid to a Gas-Depleted Site and Use Thereof,” 3) 6,344,489 (“the ‘489 Patent”), entitled “Stabilized Gas-Enriched and Gas-Supersaturated Liquids,” 4) 6,555,059 (“the ‘059 Patent”), entitled “Method of Forming Gas-Enriched Fluid,” 5)  7,008,535 (“the ‘535 patent”), entitled “Apparatus for oxygenating wastewater,” and 6) 7,294,278 (“the ‘278 Patent”), entitled “Method for oxygenating wastewater,” and 7) Reg. No. 2,745,068 (“the ‘068 Mark”). Plaintiff TherOx is an exclusive licensee of the ‘180, ‘934, and ‘489 Patents. Plaintiff TherOx is the owner of the ‘059 Patent and both Plaintiffs are co-owners of the ‘535 Patent and ‘278 Patent. Lastly, Plaintiff DynamOx is the owner of the ‘068 Mark. The Plaintiffs demanded a jury trial and requested declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. On June 20, 2012, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the case without prejudice.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Extang Corp. et al. v. Yukon Trail, Inc.

Case Name: Extang Corp. et al. v. Yukon Trail, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-14704-AC-LJM
Date Filed: 10/25/2011
Judge: Hon. Avern Cohn
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiffs, Extang Corporation and Advantage Truck Accessories, Inc., filed suit against Defendant, Yukon Trail, Inc., for patent infringement of the following two patents owned by the Plaintiff: 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,893,073 (“the ‘073 Patent”), and 2) U.S. Patent No. 7,334,830 (“the ‘830 Patent”). The ‘073 Patent is entitled “Tonneau Cover Clamp,” and the ‘830 Patent is entitled “Tonneau Cover.”  The Plaintiffs demanded a jury trial and requested declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. On May 15, 2012, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, thereby enjoining and restraining the Defendant from infringing Plaintiffs’ two patents.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Extang Corp. v. Bridgeway Enterprises, Inc.

Case Name: Extang Corp. v. Bridgeway Enterprises, Inc.
Docket Number: 4:11-cv-14703-MAG-MKM
Date Filed: 10/25/2011
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiff, Extang Corporation, filed suit against Defendant, Bridgeway Enterprises, Inc., for patent infringement of the following two patents: 1) U.S. Patent No. 6,752,449 (“the ‘449 patent”), and 2) U.S. Patent No. 6,808,221 (“the ‘221 patent”). The ‘449 patent is entitled “Roll Up Tonneau Cover System, and the ‘221 patent is entitled “Tonneau Cover System with Adjustment Limit.” The Plaintiff demanded a jury trial and requested declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Ultimately, both parties stipulated to a dismissal of the action without prejudice.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Advantage Truck Accessories, Inc. v. Smittybilt Automotive Group, Inc.

Case Name: Advantage Truck Accessories, Inc. v. Smittybilt Automotive Group, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-14702-JAC-RSW
Date Filed: 10/25/2011
Judge: Hon. Julian Abele Cook
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiff, Advantage Truck Accessories, Inc., filed suit against Defendant, Smittybilt Automotive Group, Inc., for patent infringement U.S. Patent No. 7,334,830 (“the ‘830 Patent”), entitled “Tonneau Cover.” The Plaintiff requested declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief from the court. On August 21, 2012, both parties stipulated to a dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. v. Schrader Electronics, Inc. et al

Case Name: Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. v. Schrader Electronics, Inc. et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-14525-SJM-MJH
Date Filed: 10/13/2011
Judge: Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiff, Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc., alleged that the Defendants, Schrader Electronics, Inc. and Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., infringed on the following patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,998,973 entitled “Data Transmission Method for a Tire-Pressure Monitoring System of a Vehicle,” 7,284,418 entitled “Tire Pressure Sensor Assembly,” and U.S. 7,463,952 entitled “Method and Device for Processing Measurement Signals from a Movement Sensor on Board a Motor Vehicle.” Specifically, the Plaintiff brought this action to stop the manufacture, use, sale, offers to sell and importation by the Defendants of products that infringe on the Plaintiff’s tire pressure monitoring system technology. The Plaintiff demanded a jury trial and requested declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Trial was set for October 6, 2015 with discovery ending on April 10, 2015. On January 14, 2015, a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice was filed by the Plaintiff stating the parties had reached a settlement agreement. On January 15, 2015, an order dismissing the case was issued.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Dow Corning Compound Semiconductor Solutions, LLC v. Cree, Inc.

Case Name: Dow Corning Compound Semiconductor Solutions, LLC v. Cree, Inc.
Docket Number: 1:11-cv-14255-TLL-CEB
Date Filed: 09/27/2011
Judge: Hon. Thomas L. Ludington
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiff, Dow Corning Compound Semiconductor Solutions, LLC, sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity against the Defendant, Cree, Inc., for the following patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 7,294,324, U.S. Patent No. 7,314,520, and U.S. Patent No. 7,314,521. In addition to the declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, the Plaintiff sought an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss related to jurisdictional issues. On March 13, 2013, the court granted the Defendant’s motion and dismissed the suit with prejudice.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Cephalon, Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. et al.

Case Name: Cephalon, Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-14181-DML-LJM
Date Filed: 09/22/2011
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiff, Cephalon, Inc., holds a New Drug Application No. 20-646 filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Gabitril tablets, which are prescription anti-epilepsy medical tablets. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., sought to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 5,958,951 (‘the ‘951 patent”) by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the FDA. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants’ application sought approval to market generic versions of the Plaintiff’s pharmaceutical products before expiration of the ‘951 patent. However, on February 24, 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice without known reason.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Robert Bosch, LLC v. Corea Autoparts Producing Corp. et al.

Case Name: Robert Bosch, LLC v. Corea Autoparts Producing Corp. et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-14019-JAC-MAR
Date Filed: 09/14/2011
Judge: Hon. Julian A. Cook
Status: Closed

            Robert Bosch, LLC filed suit against Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation and CAP America for patent infringement of the patents listed below (collectively, “Patents-in-Suit”):

  • U.S. Patent No. 6,553,607
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,675,434
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,836,926
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,944,905
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,973,698
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,293,321
  • U.S. Patent No. 7,523,520
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,523,218
  • U.S. Patent No. 6,611,988
            Defendants moved to bifurcate the trial into two phases: (1) liability, and (2) damages, willfulness, and other non-liability issues which the court granted. However, on September 9, 2013, both parties agreed to resolve this action.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

SAS Global Corp. v. Storm Technologies, Inc.

Case Name: SAS Global Corp. v. Storm Technologies, Inc.
Docket Number: 5:11-cv-14010-JCO-MJH
Date Filed: 09/14/2011
Judge: Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
Status: Closed

            SAS Global Corporation filed suit against Storm Technologies, Inc. for patent infringement of two patents: 1) U.S. Patent No. 5,873,156 and 2) U.S. Patent 5,386,619. Both patents are entitled, “Coal Pulverizer and Method of Improving Flow Therein” and generally relate to improvements in a coal feed and classifier cone structure associated with such pulverizers. Ultimately, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims to the action.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Maverik Lacrosse, LLC

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Maverik Lacrosse, LLC
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-13694-MOB-PJK
Date Filed: 08/24/2011
Judge: Hon. Marianne O. Battani
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiff, Warrior Sports, Inc., filed suit against Defendant, Maverik Lacrosse, LLC for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,122,769 (“The ‘769 Patent”), entitled “Hockey Glove with Ventilation Holes,” 6,813,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”), entitled “Padded Sports Glove Having Improved Flexibility and Breathability,” 7,636,951 (“the ‘951 Patent”), entitled “Protective Sports Glove with Floating Cuff Portion,” and 7,900,275 (“the ‘275 Patent”), entitled “Protective Sports Glove with Floating Cuff Portion.” The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Maverik Lacrosse, LLC, made, used, offered to sell, sold or imported into the United States protective sports gloves that infringed the Plaintiff’s patents. The Plaintiff demanded a jury trial and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. However, before the Defendant was served with the Plaintiff’s complaint, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Sandoz, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al.

Case Name: Sandoz, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-13594-AC-MAR
Date Filed: 08/17/2011
Judge: Hon. Avern Cohn
Status: Closed

            Sandoz, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S (“Defendants”) for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,677,358 (“the ‘358 patent”), entitled “NIDDM regimen.” Defendant’s produce a name-brand drug, Prandin under protection of the ‘358 patent and Plaintiff’s wish to market a generic version of Prandin. The ‘358 patent generally relates to the use of a short-acting oral hypoglycemic agent and to a novel regimen in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in which the endogenous secretion of insulin is stimulated in connection with meals by administering, in connection with the meals, a short-acting oral hypoglycaemic agent.

            Ultimately, an agreement was reached between the parties after the resolution of another case involving Defendants. As a result, on October 29, 2013, the court entered a stipulated order of dismissal.  

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Dana Canada Corp. v. Engineered Cooling Systems, LLC et al.

Case Name: Dana Canada Corp. v. Engineered Cooling Systems, LLC et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-13502-GCS-LJM
Date Filed: 08/11/2011
Judge: Hon. George Caram Steeh
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiff, Dana Canada Corporation, alleged that the Defendants, Engineered Cooling Systems, LLC (“ECS”) and Chongqing Chaoli Hi-Tech Co., Ltd, infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,487,826 entitled “Plug Bypass Valves and Heat Exchangers.” Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant ECS, imported transmission oil coolers covered by the Plaintiff’s patent. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was organized in 2004 by former sales and engineering employees of the Plaintiff’s corporation.

            The Plaintiff filed two motions to extend summons in order to properly serve the international Defendant Corporation through the Chinese government. Though the court granted both motions and extended the summons, on July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice.        

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Grace Engineering Corp. v. Wasp Archery Products et al.

Case Name: Grace Engineering Corp. v. Wasp Archery Products et al.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-13317-SJM-RSW
Date Filed: 7/28/2011
Judge: Hon. Stephen J. Murphy
Status: Closed

            The Plaintiff, Grace Engineering Corporation, alleged that the Defendants, Wasp Archery Products and Weaver Outdoor, Inc., infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,935, 976 entitled “Mechanical Broadhead With Sliding Blades.” The Plaintiff requested that the court provide declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Ultimately, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the action without prejudice, and the court dismissed the case on June 30, 2012.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Optical Memory Storage, LLC v. CMC Magnetics Corporation

Case Name: Optical Memory Storage, LLC v. CMC Magnetics Corporation
Docket Number: 2:2011-cv-13110
Date Filed: 7/20/2011
Judge: Hon. Julian A. Cook
Status: Closed

On July 20, 2011, Optical Memory Storage, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against CMC Magnetics Corp.; Hotan Corp.; Fujifilm Holdings Corp.; Fujifilm Holdings America Corp.; Fujifilm U.S.A., Inc.; Fujifilm Recordings Media U.S.A., Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Co.; Imation Corp.; Moser Baer India Limited; Ritek Corp.; Advanced Media, Inc.; Royal Philips Electronics N.V.; Philips Electronics North America Corp.; Panasonic Corp.; Panasonic Corp. of North America; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,128,099 (“the ‘099 patent”), entitled “Congruent State Changeable Optical Memory Material and Device,” 6,011,757 (“the ‘757 patent”), entitled “Optical Recording Media Having Increased Erasability”; and 5,335,219 (“the ‘219 patent”), entitled Homogenous Composition of Microcrystalline Semiconductor Material Semiconductor Devices and Directly Overwritable Memory Elements Fabricated Therefrom, and Arrays From the Memory Elements.”

Plaintiff sought the following relief: a judgment that one or more of Defendants had infringed on one or more claims of the patents; a judgment that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages and costs incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendants’ infringing activities; a judgment that Defendants account for and pay to Plaintiff a reasonable, on-going, post judgment royalty because of Defendants’ infringing activities; that Defendants’ infringements be found to be willful from the time that Defendants became aware of the infringing nature of their respective products and services, so as to aware treble damages for the period of such willful infringement; and any other relief that the court found proper.

On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff entered a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice. The case was dismissed on January 26, 2012.