Judge McMahon construed terms of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,156 (“Methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call”). The patent had previously been construed in Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB, 680 F. Supp. 2d 483...more
In 2013, a jury found the four defendants liable for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,841,146 (“Reflector”). The defendants appealed to the Federal Circuit and filed for a reexamination of the patent. In the instant action,...more
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
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
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
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
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
Canon Inc. v. Print-Rite N.A., Inc., et al.
Case Number: 1:14-cv-00540-DLC (Dkt. 16) -
Judge Cote ordered eleven cases filed by Canon are now consolidated....more
Capital Dynamics AG et al. v. Cambridge Associates, LLC -
Case Number: 1:13-cv-07766-KBF (Dkt. 42) Judge Forrest granted defendant Cambridge Associate’s motion to stay the case pending the outcome of a Covered...more
Cognex Corporation et al. v. Microscan Systems, Inc. et al.
Case Number: 11:13-cv-02027-JSR (Dkt. 175) -
Judge Rakoff denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment that two claims were indefinite. He had...more
Rates Technology, Inc. v. Broadvox Holding Company, LLC -
Case Number: 1:13-cv-00152-SAS (Dkt. 133) -
Judge Scheindlin had previously ordered Rates to obtain new counsel on or before April 4, 2014, following...more