In Brief: Qualcomm v. Broadcom

2007-1545, 2008-1162 Qualcomm v. BroadcomSD/CA 05-CV-1958Judge Rudi Brewster
Qualcomm sued Broadcom for infringing 5,576,767 and 5,452,104 related to products compliant with the H.264 video compression standard, the result of a standard setting organization ("SSO"), the Joint Video Team (“JVT”).  Broadcom claimed that Qualcomm had waived its rights to enforce the patents by participating in the JVT [...]

Let’s Get Ready To Rumble: Dickson Smacks Down PET

2008-1372 Dickson Industries v. Patent Enforcement Team LLCWE/OK 02-0467
Patentee Patent Enforcement Team (PET) appeals from the judgment of Judge Joe Heaton entering the jury’s verdict that claim 5 of 4,701,069 is invalid under §§ 102/103 and that PET tortuously interfered with Dickson’s business relations–awarding over $500k in actual and $1 million in punitive damages.  The [...]

Attorney Fees Awarded Against Dippin’ Dots

2008-13379/2008-1125 Dippin’ Dots v. MoseyND/TX 3:96-cv-1959
Dippin’ Dots appeals from Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr.’s orders awarding over $3.2 million in attorney fees to defendants under § 285.  Note that Judge Thrash is from the ND/GA.
This action has a long history and began in 1996 when Dippin’ Dots  sued Mosey asserting infringement of 5,126,156 and trade dress, [...]

CHF’s Medical Device Is Chased From The Market

2008-1335 Chase Medical v. CHF TechnologiesND/TX 3:04-cv-2570
Defendant CHF appeals from the final judgment entered by Judge Barbara Lynn on the jury’s verdict that CHF willfully infringed 2 Chase patents.  The court doubled the award under § 284, awarded attorneys’ fees, and entered a permanent injunction against sales of CHF’s Blue Egg product.
Chase’s patents are directed [...]

Candle Tin Patent Torches Limited

2008-1333 Ball Aerosol v. Limited BrandsND/IL 05-c-3684
Defendants Limited (including Bath & Body Works) appeal from Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan’s orders granting summary judgment of infringement to plaintiff and, more recently, on damages and willfulness (in the amount of $2.8 million after enhancement).  Chicago IP Law covered the case here and here.

Plaintiff Ball Areosol (BASC) sued, asserting [...]

Lighter Infringer Dodges Willfulness But Still Must Pay $800k

2008-1324/1325 Calico Brands v. Ameritek ImportsCD/CA cv-05-205

Both parties appeal from Judge Patrick Walsh’s Order granting in part, denying in part, defendant’s JMOL. The judge affirmed the jury award of nearly $800,000, but vacated the jury’s finding of willfulness and also denied plaintiff’s motion for enhanced damages.   The case involved  trigger-type lighters.
The court had previously, [...]

Exception Case is Not Certainteed

2008-1315 Knauf Fiber Glass v. CertainTeed Corp.SD/IN 1:02-cv-1215
Defendant CertainTeed appeals from Judge David Hamilton’s Order finding that it failed to prove that the case should be declared exception based on plaintiff/patentee Knauf’s (1) inequitable conduct before the PTO and (2) pursuing baseless litigation.

Knauf sued Certainteed, asserting 6,270,865 relating to a fiberglass duct board with a [...]

Got Seoul? LED Willfully Infringes Design Patents

2008-1309 Nichia Corp. v. Seoul SemiconductorND/CA 03:06-cv-0162

Defendant Seoul appeals various orders culminating with Judge Maxine Chesney’s denial of its motions for JMOL and new trial.  A jury had found that Seoul infringed 4 Nichia design patents for light emitting diodes (LEDs).
The court rejected Seoul’s arguments, essentially adopting plaintiff’s view and finding that there was sufficient [...]

District of South Dakota Slams Door on Aluminart’s Attorney Fee Claim

08-1174 Larson Mfg. v. AluminArt ProductsD/SD 03-CV-4244
Defendant AluminArt Products has appealed Judge Lawrence Piersol’s denial of its motions to alter judgment (by declaring the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285) and for attorney fees. This is the cross appeal for case 2008-1096. After a two-day trial, Judge Piersol found that Plaintiff Larson Mfg. had [...]