Shire LLC et al. v. Abhai LLC (15-cv-13909).

Following the trial in this case, in which Abhai was found to infringe a pair of Shire’s reissue patents and to have committed litigation misconduct warranting the award of attorneys’ fees (as well as a $30,000 sanction payable to the Court for wasting the Court’s time), Judge Young awarded fees of $1,501,455.32. He cut some time that would have been incurred regardless of the misconduct and for time spent on motions to compel that were not granted, reducing the award by $833k from what Shire had sought.   The case will soon be in condition for appeal.

Upaid Systems, Ltd. V. BCL, Inc. d/b/a Superwash (18-cv-10718).

Upaid filed suit against Superwash in April, accusing Superwash of infringing Upaid’s 8,976,947 patent through Superwash’s cashless laundry system. Judge Stearns granted Superwash’s motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of Upaid’s Illinois infringement suit against CCI, the manufacturer of Superwash’s payment systems. He found that staying served judicial economy because the cases involved substantially similar claims and because Superwash agreed to be bound by issues of fact and law finally resolved in the Illinois action.

Night and Day Furniture, LLC v. Atlantic Furniture, Inc. (18-cv-30104).

Night & Day filed suit against Atlantic Furniture, accusing it of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,993,088, which covers foldable beds that have the appearance of furniture when folded. Night & Day sells its Clover Murphy Cabinet Bed, that it marks with the ‘088 Patent.

Night & Day asserts that Atlantic Furniture’s Madison Murphy Bed Chest infringes the ‘088 patent. Interestingly, the complaint compares the accused bed against two of the patent’s figures, rather than to any particular claim.

SiOnyx, LLC et al. v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. et al. (15-cv-13488).

Magistrate Judge Boal denied SiOnyx’ motion for evidentiary sanctions against Hamamatsu Photonics and Hamamatsu Corp.SiOnyx and Harvard filed suit in 2015, asserting correction of inventorship, patent infringement, and breach of contract. In discovery, Hamamatsu produced summary spreadsheets of damages information without providing the underlying invoices and purchase orders. By order of October 2017, the court ordered Hamamatsu to provide that information and some additional sales data. SiOnyx asserts that Hamamatsu failed to produce the information prior to the taking of depositions of Hamamatsu personnel and provided inaccurate and shifting information relating to damages, and sought both to preclude Hamamatsu from relying on the summary data and to have sales figures taken from annual reports be deemed established pursuant to Rule 37. Citing the strong presumption of allowing cases to be decided on the merits, Judge Boal determined that the defendants’ conduct was no so extreme as to warrant evidentiary sanctions (which were the only sanctions sought by SiOnyx). Judge Boal next addressed a dispute as to the interpretation of the October order, which modified certain requests for sales data to exclude data on unaccused products. Hamamatsu chose to interpret this to require production only of documents expressly mentioning an accused product. Judge Boal corrected them and ordered production of all sales documents that pertained to an accused product, but did not find them to be in contempt of the October order.

ASM Assembly Systems Weymouth Ltd. et al. v. QTS Engineering, Inc. (18-cv-11214).

ASM Assembly Systems filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Medway’s QTS Engineering, accusing QTS of infringing U.S. Patents 8,490,545, 8,904, 929 and 9,632,650 through the sale of QTS’ Apshen Stencil Foil Adapter System frames used for .  QTS is said to advertise these frames as being designed for use with the DEK® VectorGuard® High Tension stencil frame, an ASM product.  This is the second such suit in Massachusetts involving the same patents and accused product.  After a claim construction ruling issued in the earlier case, ASM sought to amend the complaint to substitute the named plaintiffs from ASM Assembly Systems Switzerland GmbH and ASM Vectorguard Limited to ASM Assembly Systems Weymouth Ltd. and ASM Assembly Systems LLC, the two named plaintiffs in the instant case, asserting that this was necessary as a result of a restructuring of the companies.  On May 15, 2018,QTS opposed, arguing that the amendment would be futile because at the time of filing of the first complaint, ASM Weymouth already had been assigned all rights and was the only party with standing to sue on the patents.  That motion remains pending.

Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (16-cv-11613).

Judge Stearns denied Egenera’s motion to strike Cisco Systems’ invalidity expert report.  Cisco’s expert had opined on a prior art Catalyst System found at UNC, of which the expert had personal knowledge; Egenera sought to have his opinion striken because Cisco had not disclosed the expert as a fact witness and had not disclosed the UNC system in its contentions.  Judge Stearns found that the UNC system was merely an exemplar of the Cisco Catalyst System, which had properly been disclosed.  He also noted that Egeneral still has the opportunity to depose the expert, meaning that even if he was not properly identified as a fact witness, there was no prejudice to Egenera.

TheBrain Technologies LP v. OriginLab Corporation (18-cv-11169).

In a case before Judge Casper, TheBrain Technologies accuses OriginLab of willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,166,736.  The patent, which issued on December 26, 2000, claims a graphical user interface that allows for multiple windows and increased ease in accessing multiple windows on a single display (which was apparently not so common when the priority application was filed in 1997).  OriginLab sells software applications for scientific graphing and data analysis that are said to read on claims 1-4 of the ‘736 patent, and are accused of direct, contributory, and induced infringement.  The allegations of willfulness are based on correspondence to OriginLab in October 2015 laying out which products infringed and providing claim charts in support.  While the complaint seeks injunctive relief, the patent will expire on August 21, 2018 , leaving virtually no likelihood that the court will reach a decision on an injunction prior to expiration.