Crane Security Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Rolling Optics AB (14-cv-12428).

The jury reached a verdict on Wednesday in this litigation involving holographic printing patents.  After Rolling Optics suffering a series of setbacks in orders leading up to the trial, the jury determined that Rolling Optics actively induced infringement on all of the accused products, which were imported into the United States by third parties, that Crane had provided actual notice of the infringement in April 2010, and that the infringement was willful.  The jury further found that none of the asserted claims were invalid over the prior art admitted at trial, and that the on-sale bar did not apply to any of the claims.  Finally, damages were pegged at $119,186.  Defenses based on inequitable conduct were previously bifurcated, and remain to be determined.

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Cable Matters Inc. (18-cv-10888).

Symbology accuses Massachusetts company Cable Matters of infringing three patents covering methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object when the object’s Symbology is detected.  Symbology, a Plano, Texas LLC, asserts that Cable Matters’ use of Quick Response Codes (a two-dimensional barcode) on its products and packaging.  Upon scanning the code with a smartphone, users are sent information directed by the QR Code, such as a website with additional information about the product.  I note that the plaintiff’s law firm, Ferraiuoli LLC of San Juan, Puerto Rico, have been involved with several other complaints in Massachusetts involving Plano non-practicing entities.

Typemock, Ltd. v. Telerik Inc. (17-cv-10274).

Judge Stearns denied Telerik’s motion to amend its answer to add counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability due to Telerik’s lack of diligence in seeking to add these claims. Telerik obtained key documents giving rise to the proposed claims six months before seeking to amend, and provided no explanation for the delay, thus failing to establish the diligence required to show good cause under Rule 16(b).

Crane Security Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Rolling Optics AB (14-cv-12428).

Judge Sorokin precluded Rolling Optics from offering testimony that certain asserted claims are invalid. Defendants did not offer expert opinion that the claims were anticipated by Rowland Technologies patents or products, but sought to elicit non-expert fact testimony from a Rowland representative.  The Court determined that the technology at issue (described briefly here) was too complicated for a jury to understand without expert assistance, and precluded Rolling Optics from presenting any evidence, opinions or argument to the jury on the Rowland technology.  This case is in its fourth day of trial, so I expect to see more from this courtroom.

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

Judge Saylor granted Defendants’ motion to partially strike SiOnyx’s Fourth Amended Initial Contentions.  SiOnyx had sought to reintroduce a claim that had been initially asserted but voluntarily dropped because it was undergoing inter partes review.  After the IPR decision upheld the claim, only two days before defendants’ expert was to be deposed and subsequent to opening and rebuttal expert briefs, SiOnyx served the amended contentions with the claim re-added.  Judge Saylor noted that there was no good cause shown to permit reinsertion of the claim into the case, and that (to the extent SiOnyx believed it needed to wait on the PTAB’s decision, it was free to seek to stay or modify the schedule.  Defendants were entitled to rely on SiOnyx’s decision to withdraw the claim.

Crane Security Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Rolling Optics AB (14-cv-12428).

The Crane/Rolling Optics case continues rolling towards trial, with Judge Sorokin excluding proposed testimony from Rolling Optics’ technical expert.  The court construed claim terms in February 2016, and the parties briefed and argued summary judgment motions based on the Court’s constructions.  Rolling Optics never sought reconsideration of the construction of a particular term, “shaped posts,” which had been construed to mean “shaped as pieces fixed in an upright position,” but argued at summary judgment that this construction precluded portions that were wider than they were tall.  Judge Sorokin rejected this secondary construction and noted at the time that Rolling Optics had failed to contend that the Court’s actual construction required any further discovery.  In February, Rolling Optics indicated it intended to secure a supplemental expert report to address the Court’s shaped post ruling at summary judgment, but failed to seek an extension of the expert discovery period, to make the expert available for deposition, to explain how such a supplemental disclosure might impact the trial date, or identify the portion of the expert’s initial report that required amendment.  Judge Sorokin ruled on February 13 that no further expert discovery would be allowed, effectively rejecting the proposed supplemental disclosure.  Rolling Optics nevertheless indicated at the final pretrial conference that it intended to elicit testimony from the supplemental disclosure, which Crane promptly opposed.  In addition the reasons laid forth above, Judge Sorokin noted that the supplemental declaration’s stated understanding of the construction of “shaped posts” from the summary judgment order was “so plainly wrong as to render his entire Second Supplemental Declaration inadmissible as unreliable, irrelevant, and posing too great a risk of confusion,” and the proposed testimony was excluded.

Emseal Joint Systems, Ltd. v. MM Systems Corp. (14-cv-14706).

Judge Zobel, having issued a claim construction that rendered Emseal’s infringement position unfeasible, issued a final judgment of non-infringement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).  MM Systems had opposed Emseal’s motion for entry of final judgment of non-infringement on the grounds that, absent a tolling of the statute of limitations on its counterclaims, it would most likely lose the ability to pursue those claims.  Emseal had sought to have the counterclaims dismissed with or without prejudice, or in the alternative to enter final judgment under Rule 54(b) and stay the counterclaims.  MM Systems was concerned that, with the litigation having been filed in 2014, a dismissal of its counterclaims would result in their not being capable of being refiled, as a dismissed complaint is treated as though it never existed for Federal statute of limitations purposes, and provides for refiling within one year for state statute of limitations purposes.  MM Systems also asserted that the Federal Circuit would not accept jurisdiction if the counterclaims were stayed rather than dismissed (although I note that the principal case cited for this proposition, Pause Technology v. TiVo, notes that the Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction in such circumstances “short of meeting the conditions specified in Rule 54(b)…”).  Judge Zobel stayed any activity relating to the counterclaims pending the outcome of the appeal.