M2M Solutions LLC v. Enfora Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12-32 - RGA, March 9, 2016

Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to no literal or indirect infringement is denied; as to no infringement under the DOE is granted; as to no willfulness is granted. Defendants’ motion to limit damages to $120,000 is denied. Defendants’ motion for non-infringement of products manufactured and shipped abroad is granted.  Defendants’ Daubert motions are granted.

The disputed technology relates to a programmable communicator device capable of receiving and storing information from permitted callers and a device for remote data monitoring.  The court had previously ruled against the noninfringement arguments raised here in related litigation and the motion is denied here for the same reasons. Also, summary judgment of no willfulness is granted, as in the related case, since there was no evidence of pre-suit knowledge, the patent having issued mere days before the suit was filed. Summary judgment of non-infringement of a second patent is denied based on the court’s claim construction of “permitted caller.” The plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Choi to the extent he relies on third party licenses is granted. This expert fails to account for the economic differences between these agreements and the patent-in-suit.  Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s damages experts Richard Bero and Whitely Bluestein is granted because of unreliable methodology in calculating damages is granted.  The court agrees with defendants that products manufactured and shipped abroad are not subject to damages for infringement in the absence of evidence that any of the products actually entered the U.S. Defendants’ motion to limit damages is denied, leaving the amount.