Second Appeal of Permanent Injunction Turning Case into a Marathon

2008-1222 MPT v. Marathon LabelsND/OH 1:04-cv-2357 Defendant Marathon Labels appeals from Judge Patricia Gaughan’s order modifying a permanent injunction following the Federal Circuit’s decision from December 2007 in 2007-1183.  The Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that defendants contributed to infringement and affirmed the court’s JMOL on willfulness.  The panel reversed in part and remanded [...]

“Vulnerability” is Fatal to Another Preliminary Injunction

2008-1211 Printguard v. SivexD/MA 07-cv-40256 Printguard appeals the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction.  Printguard owns 6,811,863 and 7,270,873 generally directed to a foam-backed anti-marking covering used in high-speed offset printer.  Judge Dennis Saylor denied Printguard’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; despite finding that the Sivex clearly practices the claims, the court found that it [...]

Judge Chesney Affirms Jury Verdict for Celerity

2008-1205 Celerity v. Ultra CleanND/CA 05-cv-4374 Defendant Ultra Clean appeals various orders relating to the jury verdict against it, claim construction, and denied JMOL.  Celerity brought suit on 7 patents against Ultra Clean concerning modular gas delivery technology used in semiconductor manufacturing and other related industries.  During the case 5 of the patents dropped away [...]

Sprint’s Intervention In Qualcomm Not Timely

2008-1199, -1200 Qualcomm v. BroadcomCD/CA 8:05-cv-00467 Sprint appeals Judge James Selna’s denial of its motion to intervene in the injunctive relief phase of the case.  In April 2007, the court bifurcated injunctive issues from the jury trial and, in May, the jury found in favor of Broadcom.  Broadcom moved for permanent injunctive relief, and the [...]

2008-1164 Respironics v. Invacare

WD/PA 04:cv-0336 Respironics sued for infringement of 4 patents related to sleep therapy devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.  In claim construction, Judge Gary Lancaster construed 3 of the patents to require the systems to operate at predetermined settings.  The court subsequently granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement on 3 of the 4 [...]