Hospira Wins Dismissal But Loses Time

2008-1499 Aventis Pharma v. Hospira CD/CA 07-CV-8137Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer Aventis has appealed from Judge Pfaelzer’s Order granting Hospira’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing Aventis’s infringement claim with prejudice based on collateral estoppel.  Aventis owns U.S. Patent No. 5,389,618 claiming enoxaparin sodium sold under the brand name LOVENOX®.  Enoxaparin sodium is used [...]

Ignoring Italian Arbitration Proves Costly To Innovative Designs

2008-1387 R.M.F. Global v. CattanWD/PA 04-cv-0593 Declaratory judgment plaintiff Innovative Designs appeals from Judge Arthur Schwab’s order confirming the Italian Arbitration Association’s ("IAA" or, when in Italy, "AIA") award to Eliotex/Cattan of approximately $4.1 million plus over €200,000 in arbitration and attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs were the exclusive agents for defendants with rights to defendants’ patent, [...]

Ocean Duke’s Fish Run Afoul Of Patent

2008-1364 Kowalski v. Ocean DukeD/HI 04-cv-00055 Defendant Ocean Duke appeals a series of orders by Judge Barry Kurren denying its various post-trial motions on non-infringement, invalidity and damages.  A jury previously found that Ocean Duke willfully infringed 5,972,401 and awarded $2.2 million. The ’401 patent is directed to a method of manufacturing tasteless super-purified smoke [...]

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 [...]

Bendable Tab Doesn’t Pivot, Monitors Don’t Infringe

2008-1326 Digital Spectrum v. Eastman Kodak2008-1327 Digital Spectrum v. Target2008-1328 Digital Spectrum v. WestinghouseCD/CA SACV 07-00729 (main) Plaintiff Digital Spectrum appeals from Judge James Selna’s Order granting defendants summary judgment of noninfringement on 6,826,863.  The ’863 is directed to a combination video monitor and detachable picture frame. First, the court construed the limitation "a pivotal [...]

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 [...]

Northern District of California Alleviates Bigfoot’s Joint Performance Anxiety

08-1255/08-1256 Digital Impact v. Bigfoot Interactive ND/CA 05-CV-636 Plaintiff Digital Impact and Defendant Bigfoot Interactive have filed cross appeals after Judge Sandra Brown Armstrong granted Bigfoot Interactive’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement.  The parties are competitors in the email mass marketing business.  Digital Impact’s patent (6,449,634) claims a method for sensing the file formats [...]

Molten’s Defense Dribbles Off Foot, Loses $8 Million

2008-1216 Baden Sports v. Molten WD/WA 06-cv-210 Molten appeals from Judge Marsha Pechman’s denial of its motions for new trial and JMOL following a $8+ million jury verdict (and permanent injunction) against it for infringement (5,636,835) and false advertising.  Baden and Molten are competitors, and Molten’s advertised its cushioned ball as “innovative technology that is [...]