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.