On April 24, 2024, United States District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) construed claims of three patents asserted by Network-1 Technologies, Inc. against Google LLC and YouTube, LLC. The court found the asserted...more
On April 10, 2024, Judge Dale E. Ho granted a motion to quash a third-party subpoena served on Major League Baseball player Bryce Harper in connection with a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Athalonz, LLC against Under...more
On February 21, 2024, Judge Rakoff (S.D.N.Y) granted a defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in Carnegie Institute of Technology v. Fenix Diamonds. The Carnegie Institution for Science and its patent licensee, the...more
On February 23, 2024, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) entered findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to issues relating to Defendant Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”)’s defenses of invalidity and unenforceability of U.S....more
On January 5, 2024, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) decided Plaintiff GeigTech East Bay LLC (“GeigTech”)’s and Defendant Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”)’s motions in limine....more
On January 31, 2024, Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted an intervenor’s motion to stay pending the conclusion of a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office inter partes review of the asserted patent that was filed by a third party....more
On December 28, 2023, District Judge Subramanian (S.D.N.Y.) issued claim construction rulings in Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. on four disputed terms. The Court resolved two of the disputed terms in favor of Nike, Inc....more
In a patent case brought against 163 defendants that was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, Judge Rochon issued an opinion that offers guidance for defendants that have been wrongfully enjoined via an ex parte temporary...more
On December 21, 2023, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied GeigTech East Bay LLC’s (“GeigTech”) motion to preclude Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”) from raising an affirmative defense of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2),...more
On November 22, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik (S.D.N.Y.) provided some rare insight into “the applicability and scope of the attorney-client privilege as it relates to patent counsel.” Op. at 1. Judge...more
On December 1, 2023, Judge Gary R. Brown (E.D.N.Y.) awarded Plaintiff Dynamite Marketing, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) fees and costs, declined to enhance damages, granted a permanent injunction against future infringement, and denied...more
On November 14, 2023, Judge Paul G. Gardephe issued an order directing plaintiff Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC (“Riggs”) to show cause for why its complaint for patent infringement should not be dismissed with prejudice....more
On October 30, 2023, Judge Brian M. Cogan (E.D.N.Y) transferred a declaratory judgement patent dispute from the Eastern District of New York to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, on the basis of...more
In a recent decision in a patent case between massage-device companies, Judge Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) adopted two recommendations of the magistrate judge. The first R&R recommended denial of Defendant Tzumi’s motion for partial...more
On September 20, 2023, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) issued rulings on the parties’ multiple motions to strike, exclude the opinions and proposed testimony of multiple experts, and for summary judgment in a case brought by...more
On May 1, 2023, United States District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Nike, Inc. (“Nike”)’s motion to disqualify counsel for defendant, Lululemon USA Inc. (“Lululemon”). In an action concerning patents...more
On September 25, 2023, Judge Jessica Clarke (S.D.N.Y.) granted third party Compound Lab, Inc.'s ("Compound Labs”) motion to intervene in a patent infringement action filed by True Return Systems LLC (“True Return”) against...more
In a patent case involving claims directed to train-traffic-control systems, Judge Failla of the Southern District of New York denied Defendant Amtrak’s motion to dismiss, rejecting Amtrak’s arguments that Plaintiff Railware,...more
On September 5, 2023, United States District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) construed several terms raised by Plaintiff Dynamics, Inc.(“Dynamics”) and Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), including “Analog...more
On August 4, 2023, United States District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Nanobebe US Inc.’s (“Nanobebe”) motion to stay the case pending the resolution of an instituted inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
On August 8, 2023, Judge Katharine H. Parker (S.D.N.Y.) denied Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited’s (“Spectrum”) motion to compel the production of documents that it argued fell under the crime-fraud exception to the...more
On June 5, 2023, Judge Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) dismissed Plaintiffs' infringement claims against Defendants. After the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office cancelled the asserted patent—U.S. Design Patent No. D746,078—Defendants...more
On March 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Wang (S.D.N.Y.) recommended granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ T-Mobile, USA, Inc. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss the...more
On March 24, 2023, Judge John P. Cronan found the asserted claims of two patents to be directed to abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but sua sponte granted leave to amend the complaint and plead additional facts relevant...more
On March 7, 2023, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that claims directed to computerized methods and systems for “timekeeping of tasks on a document-by-document, telephone call-by-telephone call, and client service-by-client...more