Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Target Corporation et al

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Target Corporation et al
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-11101-NGE-MAR
Date Filed: 3/16/2011
Judge: Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
Status: Closed
­

Plaintiff Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit on March 16, 2011 against Defendants Target Corporation and Saturnian, Inc., alleging that Defendants infringed on Plaintiff’s lacrosse stick trade dress for the “Warrior Revo” sticks. Judge Nancy G. On August 9, 2011, the case was voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Schwartz et al v. Unity Manufacturing Company et al

Case Name: Schwartz et al v. Unity Manufacturing Company et al
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-11093-BAF-MJH
Date Filed: 3/16/2011
Judge: Hon. Bernard A. Friedman
Status: Closed pending USPTO reexamination

On March 16, 2011, Plaintiffs Mark Schwartz and Mar-Rog Specialties, Inc. filed suit against Defendants Unity Manufacturing Company and Novita Technologies, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,411,175 (“the ‘175 patent”). The ‘175 patent generally relates to a motion detector and alarm system used to alert police officers to potential dangers during traffic stops by indicating when a person moves toward a police vehicle.

Plaintiffs argued that Defendants were developing an infringing competing product known as “Eye Beam”. Plaintiffs further claimed that Defendants had commenced developing Eye Beam after working with Plaintiffs to jointly develop the technology. Defendants answered that Plaintiffs’ patent was invalid and that Defendants were not infringing. On October 7, 2011, Judge Friedman issued a stay and administratively closed the case pending the USPTO's reexamination of the Plaintiffs’ patent. The case has not been reopened.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Target Corporation et al

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Target Corporation et al
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-11091-RHC-LJM
Date Filed: 3/16/2011
Judge: Hon. Robert H. Cleland
Status: Closed

Plaintiff Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit on March 16, 2011 against Defendants Target Corporation and Infinity Sports, LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE38,216 entitled “Scooped Lacrosse Head”. Defendant Infinity Sports LLC, allegedly sold infringing lacrosse head “Renegade” and Defendant Target, sold and marketed the Renegade lacrosse head.

Shortly after commencing, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and the case dismissed on July 12, 2011.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

National Institute for Strategic Technology Acquisition and Commercialization (NISTAC) v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al

Case Name: National Institute for Strategic Technology Acquisition and Commercialization (NISTAC) v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-11039-GCS-LJM
Date Filed: 10/4/2010
Judge: Hon. George Caram Steeh
Status: Closed

On October 4, 2010, Plaintiff National Institute for Strategic Technology Acquisition and Commercialization (NISTAC), an entity affiliated with Kansas State University, filed suit in the District of Kansas against multiple Japanese OEMs. The defendants included:

  • Nissan North America, Inc.;
  • Nissan Motor Co., Ltd;
  • Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd;
  • Subaru of America, Inc.;
  • Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.;
  • Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.; and
  • American Honda Motor Co, Inc.

The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan on March 15, 2011.

Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants upon belief that the Nissan Titan, Subaru Forester, Toyota Corolla, and Honda Fit motor vehicles all sold with infringing engine piston assemblies containing solid film lubricant coatings claimed by Plaintiff’s patents, specifically, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,239,955; 5,313,919; and 5,482,637. Plaintiff alleged direct infringement, as well as contributory infringement and inducement of infringement. Plaintiff requested both preliminary and permanent injunctions, as well as damages. Plaintiff further argued that Defendants were also vicariously liable for the infringing conduct of each Defendant’s subsidiaries.

On June 6, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the allegations of indirect infringement and vicarious liability and to strike the allegations of willful infringement, which Judge Steeh partially granted on August 23, 2011 as to the vicarious liability claims. On the same day, Judge Steeh also granted Subaru’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide more definite infringement contentions.

            All Defendants answered Plaintiff’s complaint generally with denials, boilerplate defenses and/or counterclaims requesting declaratory judgment of non-infringement and alleging invalidity of the patents-at-issue. On June 29, 2012, Judge Steeh dismissed the suit against Defendants Fuji Heavy Industries and Subaru pursuant to the parties’ settlement with Plaintiff. While the court’s Markman ruling was pending, Judge Steeh denied Federal-Mogul Corporation’s motion to intervene on August 22, 2012, finding the Tier-1 supplier’s request untimely because it had waited too long to intervene while having full knowledge of the proceedings. Judge Steeh issued his Markman ruling on September 27, 2012, and shortly afterward, on October 15, 2012, the remaining parties jointly stipulated to dismissal.