The court had previously determined that The Kennedy Trust’s U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (the “parent patent”) was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) to U.S. Patent No. 6,270,766 (“the grandparent“). At issue...more
Judge Engelmayer found claims of DietGoal’s U.S. Patent No. 6,858,516 (“Method and system for computerized visual behavior analysis, training, and planning”) invalid under § 101, and so he granted Bravo’s motion for summary...more
Saying, “[t]here is no way the court would ever order 5000+ custodians to be searched (on this record),” Judge Forrest ordered the parties to meet and confer to attempt to narrow a list of custodians whose documents must be...more
Judge Hellerstein decided three discovery disputes in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co, et al., where United States Patents Nos. 5,745,574 (“Security infrastructure for electronic transactions”), 6,826,694...more
Judge Rakoff granted several of defendants’ summary judgment motions in Adrea’s suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,298,851 (“Electronic book security and copyright protection system”), 7,299,501 (Electronic...more
Baseball Quick developed a way to shorten the time needed to view a recorded baseball game, without omitting any outcome determinative actions. The patent at suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,628,716 (“Method of recording and playing...more
Discovery limitations play an important role in the differences between district court patent litigation and actions at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). So far, the PTAB has placed significant restrictions on...more
Judge Rakoff construed the following terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,585,516 (“Method and system for computerized visual behavior analysis, training, and planning”) and its associated ’516 Patent Reexamination Certificate. ...more
Merus B.V. moved for dismissal, arguing the Federal Circuit created an “off-ramp” for patent cases by holding in K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013), that when the principles set...more
Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s first amended complaint based on the affirmative defenses of laches and equitable estoppel. The patents-in-suit are U.S Patent Nos. 7,980,095 (“Jewelry method and system”) and 8,479,536...more
US Endoscopy Group requested a stay of proceedings pending resolution of three inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Judge Román recognized the benefits of the new...more
Rejecting claims that the matter was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 so as to permit the recovery of attorneys’ fees, Judge Forrest declined to award fees incurred between the court’s Markman order and order on summary...more
Following a six-day jury trial finding defendants’ infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,874,487 (“Integrated illumination assembly for symbology reader”) to be willful, Judge Rakoff permitted plaintiffs to move for a permanent...more
Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc.
Case Number: 1:13-cv-03599-DLC (Dkt. 83) -
Judge Cote used Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (April 29, 2014) to justify...more
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis, Inc., et al.
Case Number: 1:12-cv-08985-TPG (Dkt.55) -
Endo brought suit against Actavis, as well as over a dozen other pharmaceutical manufacturers, for allegedly...more
Times Three Clothier, LLC v. Spanx, Inc.
Case Number: 1:13-cv-02157-DLC (Dkt.60) -
Times Three Clothier accused Spanx of patent infringement for the sale if women’s clothing, specifically shapeware. ...more
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. Inter Partes Review.
Case Number: 1:12-cv-08060-GWG (Dkt. 68) -
One of twelve defendants in patent suits brought by Endo petitioned the...more
Realtime Data LLC v. CME Group, Inc. et al.
Case Number: 1:11-cv-06697-KBF (Dkt. 883) -
Following defendants’ wins at summary judgment, and at the Federal Circuit, one defendant, CME Group, Inc. et al., moved...more
Cognex Corp. et al. v. Microscan Systems, Inc. et al.
Case Number: 1:13-cv-02027-JSR (Dkt.202) -
The jury in Cognex v. Microscan found infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,874,487 (“Integrated illumination...more
JobDiva, Inc. v. Monster Worldwide, Inc.
Case Number: 1:13-cv-08229-KBF (Dkt.37) -
The court accepted the parties’ proposal to have a half-day Markman hearing for a case entailing five patents....more
The SDNY Patent Litigation Update provides a single-resource, monthly summary of patent litigation action in SDNY including important decisions, complaints filed, and trending issues. For example, last month Judge Cote,...more
Canon Inc. v. Print-Rite N.A., Inc., et al.
Case Number: 1:14-cv-00540-DLC (Dkt. 16)
The consolidated defendants in this replacement toner infringement case requested an extension to the time to answer...more
Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothier, LLC -
Case Number: 1:13-cv-02157-DLC (Dkt. 58) -
Judge Cote construed claims in six design patents, and determined that two of the patents were indefinite. The patents at...more
Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Case Number: 1:12-cv-06851-AJN (Dkt. 69) -
Judge Nathan approved the parties’ proposal to maintain the case on administrative hold pending...more
Radiancy, Inc. v. Viatek Consumer Products Group, Inc.
Case Number: 7:13-cv-03767-NSR (Dkt. 117) -
Judge Roman, in an amended opinion, dismissed counterclaim defendant PhotoMedex from the case, and dismissed...more