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.