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.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On Incorporated

Case Name: Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On Incorporated
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11503-RHC-MKM
Date Filed: 4/4/2012
Judge: Hon. Robert H. Cleland
Status: Closed

Bosch filed suit for patent infringement against Snap-On regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,782,313 (“the ‘313 patent”) entitled “Diagnostic Test Device For Motor Vehicle With Programmable Control Devices.” The ‘313 patent generally relates to a diagnostic tester for motor vehicles with programmable control units. Snap-On counterclaimed alleging the patent was invalid and/or the patent was misused. On May 23, 2013, the court entered a stipulated order dismissing Snap-On’s counterclaim. The court entered final judgment for the Defendants finding the ‘313 patent invalid due to indefiniteness of the claim terms “program recognition device” and “program loading device.” On October 23, 2013, Bosch filed an appeal of the court’s judgment. The parties also continued to fight over the issue of attorney’s fees and cost until May 2015.  On May 1, 2015, an order dismissing the case with prejudice was signed by the Hon. Robert H. Cleland. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs and fees.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Magna Electronics, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis, Co. Ltd. et al

Case Name: Magna Electronics, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis, Co. Ltd. et al
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11411-SFC-LJM
Date Filed: 3/29/2012
Judge: Hon. Sean F. Cox
Status: Closed

Magna Electronics, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Hyundai Mobis, Co. Ltd, Mobis America, Inc., Mobis Parts America, LLC, Mobis North America, LLC, American Autoparts, Inc., Mobis Alabama, LLC, and Mobis Georgia, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,222,447 (“the ‘447 patent”) entitled “Rearview Vision System With Indicia Of Backup Travel”, and 5,949,331 (the’ 331 patent”) entitled “Display Enhancements For Vehicle Vision System.”  The ‘447 patent and ‘331 patent generally relate to vision systems for vehicles and, more particularly, to rearview vision systems which provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction rearward of the vehicle.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that Defendants made, imported, and sold products which incorporated Plaintiff’s patented products. The Defendants counterclaimed alleging the ‘447 patent and the ‘331 patent were invalid. A re-examination of the ‘447 patent and the ‘331 patent was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regarding patentability of each patent. On November 20, 2012, the court ordered a stay of the case pending the results of re-examination with USPTO. Ultimately, the case was dismissed on January 14, 2013 after the parties’ stipulated to dismiss without prejudice. The parties stipulated that either party may reinstate the case after the pending re-examinations become final and any appeals are exhausted. The USPTO has since issued certificates of correction for both patents.  

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Littelfuse, Inc. v. Pacific Engineering Corporation, et al

Case Name: Littelfuse, Inc. v. Pacific Engineering Corporation, et al
Docket Number: 2:2012-cv-11430-BAF-DRG
Date Filed: 3/29/2012
Judge: Hon. Bernard A. Friedman                     
Status: Closed

Littelfuse, Inc. filed suit against Pacific Engineering Company and PEC of America Corporation for patent infringement of the four following U.S. Patents: 8,077,007 entitled “Blade Fuse”; US Patent No. 7,928,827 entitled “Blade Fuse”; No. D575,746 entitled “Blade Fuse and Fuse Element therefore”; and D584,239 entitled “Blade Fuse Element.” The patents generally relate to blade fuses for use in automotive application and the design of such blade fuses. On May 1, 2013, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint against Defendants without prejudice.