Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Chrysler Group, LLC

Case Name: Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Chrysler Group, LLC
Docket Number: 2:13-cv-11378-PJD-MAR
Date Filed: 3/28/2013
Judge: Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
Status: Pending
 
On March 28, 2013, Beacon Navigation GmbH (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Chrysler Group, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging that the Defendant infringed United States Patent Nos. 6,360,167 and 5,878,368 (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”).  Patent No. 6,360,167 discloses a vehicle navigation system with location-based multi-media annotations.  The navigation system provides multi-media annotations, such as text, graphics, and/or audio, based on the present location of the vehicle.  The navigation system includes a wireless communication system, which interacts with and provides further location-based multi-media annotations.

  Patent No. 5,878,368 discloses a navigation system with user definable cost values.  The navigation system will determine a route from a selected beginning point to a desired destination by evaluating the “cost” of the road segments to be traveled.  Once the cost is determined, the navigation system will recommend the route with the lowest total cost.  The navigation system may factor in congestion levels, highway preference and avoidance, and toll road preference and avoidance in determining the recommended route.

This action, among many others, was transferred from Delaware to Michigan on March 28, 2013.  On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint and a Motion to Consolidate Cases.  The Defendant did not oppose consolidation, but did oppose the Amended Complaint filing.  The Plaintiff claims that it is in the court’s best interest to allow the amendment because it would save both judicial and party resources.  Before the court could issue an order on the motions, however, Judge Duggan signed an order staying the case pursuant to the court’s August 12, 2013 order in case numbers 13-cv-11389 and 13-cv-11511, which stayed the cases pending the results of a re-examination notice filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office questioning patentability of the Patents-in-Suit. Judge Duggan signed the order on September 17, 2013.  The case was reassigned to the honorable Victoria A. Roberts on October 19, 2015. A status conference was conducted on December 15, 2015. The following issues were discussed during the status conference: pending motions including Beacon’s Request to Lift the Stay and Consolidate the cases, Consolidation (all pretrial proceedings and validity trial), claim construction, lead counsel, scheduling order, dismissal with prejudice as requested by Defendants), and bifurcation of liability and damages (as requested by defendants).  On December 22, 2015, an order was entered by the Court relating to (1) dismissal of specified claims, (2) limitation on remaining claims, (3) litigation before the USPTO, (4) denial of motions to dismiss, (5) delayed grant of the requests to consolidate, and (6) stay. Specifically, the following claims were dismissed with prejudice as a result of reexamination:

·         Claim 1 (US 6,374,180)

·         Claims 1, 26, and 29 (US 6,178,380)

·         Claims 1, 2-3, 5-6, 10-13, 17-20, and 22 (US 6,029,111)

·         Claims 1 and 32 (US 6,360,167)

·         Claims 1, 12, and 18 (US 5,819,201)

·         Claims 1, 7, and 11 (US 6,163,269)

·         Claims 1 and 15 (US 5,878,368)

As a result, Claims 1 and 3 of US 5,862,511 remain in suit. Defendants’ requested the opportunity to challenge the claims remaining in suit in the USPTO. In response to this request, the Court ordered Defendants to take action within 120 days of the order or the Court would reevaluate its position on stay. The Court also denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, declines to grant consolidation, and continued to stay the case to allow Defendants to pursue USPTO review. Currently, the case is still stayed. 

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Magna Electronics, Inc. v. Valeo, Incorporated et al

Case Name: Magna Electronics, Inc. v. Valeo, Incorporated et al
Docket Number: 2:13-cv-11376-AC-DRG
Date Filed: 3/28/2013
Judge: Hon. Avern Cohn
Status: Pending

On March 28, 2013, Magna Electronics, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Valeo, Incorporated, Valeo S. A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Shalter und Sensoren GmbH, Valeo Vision Systems, and Connaught Electronics Ltd. (“Defendants”) alleging that the Defendants infringed United States Patent Nos. 7,859,565, 7,877,175, 7,991,522, and 8,386,114 (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”).  The Patents-in-Suit disclose imaging systems for vehicles.  Specifically, Patent No. 7,859,565 discloses a vehicle rearview vision system that utilizes image capture devices, such as CMOS imaging arrays.  One of the major purposes of the invention is eliminate exterior rearview mirrors by utilizing image capture devices. 

Patent Nos. 7,877,175; 7,991,522; and 8,386,114 disclose an imaging system for a vehicle that includes an imaging array sensor and control.  The image array and sensor comprises a plurality of photo-sensing pixels that can capture a field of view of the vehicle’s exterior.  The invention is intended to provide an object detection system, such as a blind spot detection system, lane change assistance devise, lane departure warning system, and so on.

 The Defendants filed a Motion to Stay on December 6, 2014.  The court granted the Defendants' unopposed Motion to Stay pending the decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeals Board.  As of July 25, 2014, this case was stayed pending the decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeals Board.

On April 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay as all inter partes review proceedings involving the patents in suit have been completed and all appeals have been terminated.  On April 15, 2016, the parties held a status conference and the case was consolidated with case no. 13-11376. Additionally, the stay in case no. 13-11376 was lifted. Further, liability and damages were bifurcated and discovery on damages was stayed. An amended complaint was filed on May 23, 2016. The case is currently pending.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Drew Technologies, Inc. v. Robert Bosch, L.L.C. et al

Case Name: Drew Technologies, Inc. v. Robert Bosch, L.L.C. et al
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-15622-TGB-MKM
Date Filed: 12/21/2012
Judge: Terrence G. Berg
Status: Closed

            Drew Technologies, Inc. filed suited against Robert Bosch, LLC, Bosch Engineering GmbH, Bosch Engineering North America, and Robert Bosch GmbH for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,786,851 entitled “Data Acquisition and Display System for Motor Vehicle.”  The patent generally relates to a display device for use in a motor vehicle and more particularly to a digital display system that integrates with the vehicle's on-board computer as well as peripheral devices for acquisition and display of information in a user configurable format. On May 1, 2015, the parties submitted a stipulation and order of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss the case with prejudice based on a settlement agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the court ordered dismissal on May 5, 2015.  

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Littelfuse, Inc. v. Pacific Engineering Corporation et al

Case Name: Littelfuse, Inc. v. Pacific Engineering Corporation et al
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-14957-BAF-DRG
Date Filed: 11/11/2012
Judge: Hon. Bernard A. Friedman
Status: Closed

            Littelfuse, Inc. filed suit against  Pacific Engineering Corporation and PEC of America Corporation for patent infringement of the following U.S. Patent Nos. 8,077,007 entitled “Blade Fuse”; 7,928,827 entitled “Blade Fuse”; D575,746 entitled “Blade Fuse and Fuse Element thereof”; and D584,239 entitled “Blade Fuse Element.”  The complaint was filed on November 11, 2012. On June 21, 2013, the claims against PEC of America were dismissed. A motion for reconsideration of the order granting PEC of America Corporation’s motion to dismiss was filed along with an alternative motion for leave to file an amended complaint on July 5, 2013 by Littelfuse, Inc. On August, 7, 2013, the court denied Littelfuse, Inc.’s motion and as of September 6, 2013, an appeal was filed by Littelfuse regarding the motion to dismiss.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Numatics, Incorporated v. Balluff, Inc. et al

Case Name: Numatics, Incorporated v. Balluff, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-14909-DML-MKM
Date Filed: 11/2/2012
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Closed

            Numatics, Incorporated filed suit against Balluff, Inc. and H.H. Barnum Co. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,967,646 entitled, “Modular Electrical Bus Assembly.”  The complaint was filed on November 2, 2012, but plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 11, 2013.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Burroughs, Incorporated v. Panini North America, Incorporated

Case Name: Burroughs, Incorporated v. Panini North America, Incorporated
Docket Number: 5:12-cv-14804-JCO-MAR
Date Filed: 10/30/12
Judge: Hon. John Corbett O'Meara
Status: Closed

            Burroughs, Incorporated brought suit against Panini North America, Incorporated for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,546,396. The patent generally relates to document processing systems. While the complaint was filed on October 30, 2012, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice on November 20, 2013.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

FenF, LLC v. Smartthingsz, Inc.

Case Name: FenF, LLC v. Smartthingsz, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-14770-PJD-MKM
Date Filed: 10/26/2012
Judge: Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Status: Pending

            FenF, LLC filed suit against Smartthingsz, Inc. for the patent infringement of  U.S. Patent No. 8,002,675. The patent generally relates to an orthopedic device that stretches the foot and toes. In the claim construction opinion issued July 25, 2013, the court found FenF interpretation of asserted claim 35 as proper. In that same opinion, the court denied FenF’s motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction as FenF had not proved that Smartthingsz was infringing. However, FenF filed a motion for reconsideration after conversations with Smartthingsz stipulating to infringement. As such, FenF filed a motion for reconsideration and the court granted FenF’s motion and issued a permanent injunction was issued on April 14, 2014 against defendant for infringing on the patent. Judgment was rendered for FenF on May 7, 2014. On May 12, 2014 Smartthingz filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit, which vacated the district court’s final judgment, permanent injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings based on the Federal District revised claim construction of the terms at issue in claim 35.  On June 4, 2015, the court issued a stipulation and order of dismissal without prejudice subject to the terms and condition of a settlement agreement between the parties.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Custom Seal v. Duro-Last Roofing, Inc.

Case Name: Custom Seal v. Duro-Last Roofing, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-14579-AC-MJH
Date Filed: 10/16/2012
Judge: Hon. Avern Cohn
Status: Closed

            Custom Seal, Incorporated filed suit against Duro-Last Roofing, Inc. and Westfield Insurance Company for patent infringement. The United States of America is an intervened as a party. The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 4,652,321, 4,872,296, 4,848,045, and 4,909,135. The patents generally relate to prefabricated flat and low-sloped roofing systems used in the United States. While the case was filed on October 16, 2012, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice on June 12, 2013.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Lacks Enterprises, Inc. et al v. HD Supply, Inc. et al

Case Name: Lacks Enterprises, Inc. et al v. HD Supply, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-14472-DPH-DRG
Date Filed: 10/9/2012
Judge: Hon. Denise Page Hood
Status: Closed

            Lacks Enterprises, Inc. and Lacks Home Products, LLC filed suit against HD Supply, Inc.; HD Supply Distribution, LLC; The Home Depot, Inc.; and Crown Bolt, a division of HD Supply, Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. 668,784. The patent relates to decorative garage door trim. On March 7, 2013, all parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal with prejudice, as a settlement had been reached.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Holmes et al v. Myers Industries, Inc.

Case Name: Holmes et al v. Myers Industries, Inc.
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-14327-MAG-DRG
Date Filed: 9/28/2012
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

            James Holmes and Safety Trigo, Inc. filed suit against Myers Industries, Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,070,946 entitled “Dual Wheel Mounting System.”  The patent generally directed at skirt nuts that secure a wheel to a stud. The suit was filed on September 28, 2012, and Plaintiffs soon voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on February 28, 2013.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Merry Products Corp. v. Test Rite Products Corp.

Case Name: Merry Products Corp. v. Test Rite Products Corp.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-14212-VAR-MKM
Date Filed: 9/21/2012
Judge: Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
Status: Closed

            Products Corp. filed suit against Test Rite Products Corp. for patent infringement of a U.S. Design Patent No. D569,053 entitled, “Cat Washroom.”   The patent generally relates to a house-like structure that covers a litterbox. While the suit was filed September 21, 2012, on June 28, 2013, plaintiff dismissed case without prejudice and agreed to submit to arbitration.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Bauer Hockey, Inc.

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Bauer Hockey, Inc.
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-14202-GAD-DRG
Date Filed: 9/21/2012
Judge: Hon. Gershwin A. Drain
Status: Closed

            Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit against Bauer Hockey, Inc. for patent infringement. The patents in dispute are No. 6,550,069 entitled, “Padded Sports Glove Having Improved Flexibility and Breathability”; No. 7,117,540 entitled, “Padded Sports Glove Having Improved Flexibility and Breathability”; and No. 7,318,214 entitled, “Padded Sports Glove Having Improved Flexibility and Breathability.”  The patent is commonly related to gloves worn while playing hockey. While the suit was filed September 21, 2012, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice on January 15, 2014.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Genetic Technologies Limited v. Genesis Genetics Institute, LLC

Case Name: Genetic Technologies Limited v. Genesis Genetics Institute, LLC
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-14080-SFC-MKM
Date Filed: 9/5/2012
Judge: Hon. Sean F. Cox
Status: Closed

            Genetic Technologies Limited filed suit against Genesis Genetics Institute, LLC and Stanley Dickson, Jr. Christopher Darrow is named as an interested party for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,179 entitled “Intron Sequence Analysis Method for Detection of Adjacent and Remote Locus Alleles as Haplotypes.”  The patent is generally directed at genetic testing. While the suit was filed September 5, 2012, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice on June 17, 2013.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Joao Control and Monitoring Systems LLC v. Ford Motor Company

Case Name: Joao Control and Monitoring Systems LLC v. Ford Motor Company
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-14004-MAG-MAR
Date Filed: 9/11/2012
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

            Joao Control and Monitoring Systems LLC filed suit against Ford Motor Company for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,917,405 entitled “Control Apparatus and Methods for Vehicles” and No. 6,549,130 entitled “Control Apparatus and Method for Vehicles and/or for Premises.”  Plaintiff alleges that Ford infringed on their patents when using them for its Ford Sync 911 software and hardware. On December 24, 2013, this and other cases between the parties were consolidated. The designated lead case number is now 13-13615.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Under Armour, Inc.

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Under Armour, Inc.
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-13926-MAG-MAR
Date Filed: 9/5/2012
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

            Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit against Under Armour, Inc. for patent infringement of the following U.S. Patent Nos. 7,636,951 entitled “Protective Sports Glove with Floating Cuff Portion” and 7,900,275 entitled “Protective Sports Glove with Floating Cuff Portion.”  The patents generally relate to gloves worn while playing lacrosse. While the suit was filed September 5, 2012, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the case with prejudice on June 17, 2013.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Zen Design Group, Limited v. Accoutrements, LLC

Case Name: Zen Design Group, Limited v. Accoutrements, LLC
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-13744-GCS-MAR
Date Filed: 8/24/2012
Judge: Hon. George Caram Steeh
Status: Closed
 
            Zen Design Group, Limited filed suit against Accoutrements, LLC d/b/a Archie McPhee for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,128,044 entitled “System For Mounting A Photovoltaic Module To A Surface.” The patent is commonly used for mounting solar panels. While the suit was filed on July 24, 2012, it was dismissed with prejudice on January 28, 2013 after the parties agreed to settle.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Shamrock Lacrosse, Inc.

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Shamrock Lacrosse, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-13478-SFC-RSW
Date Filed: 8/8/2012
Judge: Hon. Sean F. Cox
Status: Closed
 
            Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit against Shamrock Lacrosse, Inc. d/b/a Onyx Lacrosse for patent infringement in August 2012. The patent in dispute is U.S. Patent No. RE 38,216 entitled “Scooped Lacrosse Head.” The patent is commonly used in the manufacturing of lacrosse sticks. While the suit was filed August 8, 2012, it was dismissed voluntarily and without prejudice soon thereafter on October 8, 2012.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Unirac, Inc. v. Solar Solutions International, Inc.

Case Name: Unirac, Inc. v. Solar Solutions International, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-13269-AC-DRG
Date Filed: 7/24/2012
Judge: Hon. Avern C. Cohn
Status: Closed

            Unirac, Inc. filed suit against Solar Solutions International, Inc. asserting patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,128,044 entitled “System For Mounting A Photovoltaic Module To A Surface.” The patent is commonly used for mounting solar panels. While the suit was filed on July 24, 2012, it was dismissed with prejudice on January 28, 2013 after the parties agreed to settle.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Relume Corporation Trust et al v. Leotek Electronics USA Corp.

Case Name: Relume Corporation Trust et al v. Leotek Electronics USA Corp.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-13074-AJT-MAR
Date Filed: 7/12/2012
Judge: Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow
Status: Closed

            Relume Corporation Trust, Denny Foy, Shawn Grady, and Marie Hochstein (collectively, the “Plaintiffs) filed suit against Leotek Electronics USA Corp. for patent infringement in July 2012. The patents in dispute are No. RE 42,161 entitled, “Power Supply for Light Emitting Diode Array” and No. 5,661,645 entitled “Power Supply for Light Emitting Diode Array.”  The patents generally relate to an apparatus for generating power to a light emitting diode array and in particular to operating traffic signals. While the suit was filed on July 12, 2012, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice on January 11, 2013.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Cinpres Gas Injection, Ltd. v. Volkswagen Group of America

Case Name: Cinpres Gas Injection, Ltd. v. Volkswagen Group of America
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-13000-BAF-MKM
Date Filed: 7/9/2012
Judge: Hon. Bernard A. Friedman
Status: Closed

            Cinpres Gas Injection, Ltd. filed suit against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent  No. 6,716,387 (“the ‘387 patent”), entitled, “Process for Pressure Assisted Molding of Hollow Articles” and No. 6,896,844 (“the ‘844 patent”), entitled, “Process For Gas Assisted And Water Assisted Injection Molding.”  Both patents generally relate to fluid assisted injection molding processes.

            Cinpres amended the complaint on both October 15, 2012 and December 17, 2012 and Volkswagen filed motions to dismiss the claims of willful infringement and infringement under § 271(A) and § 271(G) on January 3, 2013. The court denied both motions on January 9, 2013. Shortly after, in March 2013, Volkswagen filed a request for reexamination of both the ‘387 and ‘844 patents. Volkswagen proceeded to file a motion to stay pending reexamination on August 26, 2013. The Court granted the motion on October 24, 2013, stating it would wait until the United States Patent and Trademark Office completes the reexamination of Claim 12 of the ‘387 patent and Claim 9 of the ‘844 patent.

            In the meantime, the parties had a telephonic conference with the Court in June 2014 to work out the following issues: (1) proposed order for the preservation of evidence from Volkswagen’s foreign suppliers, (2) Volkswagen’s willingness to disclose its remaining defenses, (3) status of reexamination, and (4) request for deposition of Cinpres employee who was leaving the company. The next status conference was scheduled for January 13, 2015.

            Reexamination for both patents had been settled by the USPTO in fall of 2014. As a result, at the next status conference on January 13, 2015, Cinpres requested that the stay be lifted. The Court lifted the stay on January 14, 2015 and discovery continued. Eventually, the Court ordered facilitation between the parties and Christopher Darrow was appointed as discovery master and neutral facilitator for the suit. On December 17, 2015, Cinpres filed a stipulation of dismissal citing that each party bears their own costs and fees.

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Dunsmore v. State of Michigan

Case Name: Dunsmore v. State of Michigan
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-12960-SJM-MAR
Date Filed: 7/6/2012
Judge: Hon. Stephen J. Murphy
Status: Closed

            Pro se plaintiff Deborah Kay Dunsmore brought this action against the State of Michigan for infringement of a land patent. The complaint was filed on July 6, 2012, and the court dismissed the complaint on July 16, 2012.

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Kiekert AG v. Magna Closures of America, Inc. et al

Case Name: Kiekert AG v. Magna Closures of America, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 4:12-cv-12977-MAG-RSV
Date Filed: 7/6/2012
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

            Kiekert AG filed suit against Magna Closures of America, Inc. and Magna International Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent  No. 5,634,677 entitled “Power Locking Motor Vehicle Door Latch.” Kiekert voluntarily dismissed the suit on October 30, 2012 before defendants filed or served an answer.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Proprietect LP v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

Case Name: Proprietect LP v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-12953-JAC-DRG
Date Filed: 7/5/2012
Judge: Hon. David M. Lawson
Status: Pending

            Proprietect LP filed suit against Johnson Controls, Inc. for patent infringement of US Patent Nos. 7,481,637 and 7,878,785, both entitled “Vented Mold and Method for Producing Molded Article.”  The patents are used commonly in the production of foam articles. The suit was filed on July 5, 2012, and a claim construction order was issued on December 23, 2013. The parties entered into a settlement and the case was dismissed with prejudice without costs or attorney fees to either party on October 20, 2014.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Airmid IP LLC v. Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Corp.

Case Name: Airmid IP LLC v. Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Corp.
Docket Number: 2:12-cv-12796-RHC-LIM
Date Filed: 6/26/2012
Judge: Hon. Robert H. Cleland
Status: Closed

            Airmid IP, LLC filed suit for patent infringement against Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Corporation. The patents in dispute are United States Patent Nos. 6,852,280 entitled, “Condensed Perfusion Circuit for Cardiopulmonary Bypass and Cardioplegia” and 6,946,099 entitled, “Methods of Using Condensed Perfusion Circuit for Cardiopulmonary Bypass and Cardioplegia” (collectively, “the patents”).  The patents relate to devices used in heart surgery. Terumo answered the complaint filed by Airmid with affirmative defenses including, but not limited to, failure to state a claim, non-infringement, invalidity, laches/estoppel, prosecution history estoppel. Terumo further counterclaimed asserting that the inventors listed on the patents did not conceive any claimed element of the patent’s claims among other things. On September 7, 2012, Airmid filed a motion to dismiss on Terumo’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses. The case was dismissed on November 30, 2012. However, on December 27, 2012, Airmid filed an agreed motion to modify the November 30, 2012 dismissal order based on a potential settlement. The case was officially reinstated on February 12, 2013. On February 26, 2013, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case without prejudice. The case was dismissed on March 21, 2013.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Maverik Lacrosse

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Maverik Lacrosse
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-12690-MOB-PJK
Date Filed: 6/20/2012        
Judge: Hon. Marianne O. Battani
Status: Closed

            Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit against Maverik Lacrosse, LLC for patent infringement of the following ten patents: 1) U.S. Patent No. 5,787,506 entitled, “Hockey Glove with Ventilation Holes,” 2) U.S. Patent No. 6,085,254 entitled, “Hockey Glove With Ventilation Holes,” 3) U.S. Patent No. 6,122,769 entitled, “Hockey Glove With Ventilation Holes;” 4) U.S. Patent No. 6,550,069 entitled, “Padded Sports Glove Having Improved Flexibility and Breathability,” 5) U.S. Patent No. 6,813,780 entitled, “Padded Sports Glove having Improved Flexibility and Breathability,” 6) U.S. Patent No. 7,117,540 entitled, “Padded Sports Glove having Improved Flexibility and Breathability,” 7) U.S. Patent No. 7,318,241 entitled, “Padded Sports Glove Having Improved Flexibility and Breathability,” 8) U.S. Patent No. 7,636,951 entitled, “Protective Sports Glove With Floating Cuff Portion,” 9) U.S. Patent No. 7,900,275 entitled, “Protective Sports Glove With Floating Cuff Portion;” and 10) U.S. Patent No. RE 38,216 entitled, “Scooped Lacrosse Head.”

            The patents-in-suit generally relate to protective sports gloves used to protect the user’s hand and to enhance flexibility, durability, fit, and breathability during use as well as an improved lacrosse head to enhance athletic performance. Warrior Sports alleged that Maverik was aware of the Warrior patents due to previous entered into settlement agreements related to the patents-in-suit by Maverik.  In addition, Warriors Sports claimed to have noticed defendant Maverik with a cease-and-desist letter in regards to its sale of patented Warrior products. On January 15, 2014, the parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal of all claims with prejudice.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Zen Design Group, Limited v. Hot Focus, Inc.

Case Name: Zen Design Group, Limited v. Hot Focus, Inc.
Docket Number: 4:2012-cv-12659-MAG-RSW      
Date Filed: 6/18/2012
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

Zen Design Group, Ltd. filed suit against Hot Focus for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,860,616 entitled, “Ultraviolet Light Writing System.” The patent generally relates to a writing system containing an ink or dye that shines in the visible portion of the light spectrum when exposed to ultraviolet light. Specifically, Zen Design alleged that Hot Focus sold its product “Secret Message, Invisible Writing Pen” without its consent and in violation of its patent. However, on October 22, 2012, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims with prejudice against the defendant.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

GFIT, LLC v. Medi USA Limited Partnership

Case Name: GFIT, LLC v. Medi USA Limited Partnership
Docket Number: 4:2012-cv-12296-MAG-PJK        
Date Filed: 5/25/2012
Judge: Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith
Status: Closed

            GFIT, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Medi USA Limited Partnership (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,898,948 and 6,032,296 both entitled, “Support/Sport Sock and Method of Use.” The patents generally relate to a support/sport sock for enhancing athletic performance. On September 13, 2012, Plaintiff voluntary dismissed its claims without prejudice against the Defendant.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

GFIT, LLC v. Sigvaris, Inc.

Case Name: GFIT, LLC v. Sigvaris, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-12300-GER-LJM        
Date Filed: 5/25/2012
Judge: Hon. Gerald E. Rosen
Status: Closed

            GFIT, LLC filed suit against Sigvaris, Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,898,948, entitled “Support/Sport Sock.” The patent generally relates to a Support/Sport Sock for enhancing athletic performance. On September 13, 2012, GFIT voluntarily dismissed the claim, without prejudice, against Sigvaris.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

GFIT, LLC v. FLA Orthopedics, Inc. et al

Case Name: GFIT, LLC v. FLA Orthopedics, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-12305-VAR-LJM        
Date Filed: 5/25/2012
Judge: Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
Status: Closed

            GFIT, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against FLA Orthopedics, Inc. and BSN Medical, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,898,948 entitled, “Support/Sport Sock” and US Patent No. 6,032,296 entitled, “Support/Sport Sock and Method of Use.” The patents generally relate to a support/sport sock for enhancing athletic performance. Defendants counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and non-infringement of the patents alleged by the Plaintiff. However, on September 26, 2012, both parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of all claims with prejudice for reasons unknown.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Marchese v. Milestone Systems, Inc. et al

Case Name: Marchese v. Milestone Systems, Inc. et al
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-12276-NGE-MJH       
Date Filed: 5/24/2012
Judge: Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
Status: Closed

            Joseph Marchese (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Milestone System, Inc.  (“Defendant”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,891,566 and 8,185,964 both entitled “Digital Video System using Networked Cameras.” The patents generally relate to systems for accessing, recording, and displaying camera images from any of a number of remotely located cameras. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant sold and continued to sell his patented video surveillance systems.  The sale of these systems included Greektown Casino and Hotel in Detroit, Michigan. On February 21, 2013, Defendant motioned to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of standing. However, on June 21, 2013, the honorable Judge Nancy G. Edmunds denied Defendant’s motion and found Plaintiffs have standing to pursue the action as well as granted Plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint. Defendants filed an answer to the third amended complaint on July 3, 2013. Oral arguments were heard by a special master on July 25, 2013 regarding the resolution of claim construction issues on the ‘566 patent. The special master issued his written report and recommendation on claim construction on August 13, 2013. The court accepted and adopted the special master’s report and recommendation on October 29, 2013. Ultimately, on October 29, 2014, the case was dismissed with prejudice based on a stipulation by the parties.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

C.F. Stinson, Inc. et al v. Douglass Industries, Inc.

Case Name: C.F. Stinson, Inc. et al v. Douglass Industries, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-12050-BAF-LJM
Date Filed: 5/7/2012
Judge: Hon. Bernard A. Friedman
Status: Closed

            C.F. Stinson, Inc. and Sample Technologies, LLC filed suit against Douglass Industries, Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,249,035 entitled “Method and System for Presenting Custom-Labeled Surface Material Samples Over a Computer Network.” The patent generally relates to data processing including business practice and management. Specifically, the surface material samples are associated with a business entity within one or more computer databases and the surface material samples are labeled with information specified by the business entity. On October 30, 2012, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

VetGen, LLC et al v. Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC et al

Case Name: VetGen, LLC et al v. Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC et al
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-12171-BAF-LJM
Date Filed: 5/5/2012
Judge: Hon. Bernard A. Friedman
Status: Closed

            VetGen, The Regents of the University of Michigan, and Michigan State University filed suit against Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC and VetNostic (“Defendants”) for patent infringement of five patents (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”: U.S. Patent No. 6,040,143 entitled, “DNA Encoding Von Willebrand Factor and Methods of Use”; U.S. Patent No. 6,074,832 entitled, “DNA Encoding Von Willebrand Factor and Methods of Use”; U.S. Patent No. 6,410,237 entitled, “DNA Encoding Von Willebrand Factor and Methods of Use”; U.S. Patent No. 6,767,707 entitled, “DNA Encoding Von Willebrand Factor and Methods of Use”; and U.S. Patent No. 6,780,583 entitled, “DNA Encoding Von Willebrand Factor and Methods of Use.” The patents-in-suit generally relate to the canine von Willebrand factor (vWF, and to the gene encoding vWF as well as a genetic defect that causes Canine von Willebrand’s disease.  On August 29, 2012, Defendants counterclaimed asserting the patents-in-suit were invalid or unenforceable.  In addition, Defendants claimed anti-trust violations in monopolizing the market for molecular diagnosis of the Willebrand disease. On September 24, 2012, the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the case with prejudice based on their decision to settle.