KCG Technologies, LLC v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. et al. (19-cv-11101).

KCG is the assignee of U.S. Patent 9,671,955, directed to a virtual smart phone on a car-mounted display KCG claims that CarMax induces infringement of this patent through sales of used cars having CarPlay®, NissanConnect®, Android Auto, and Toyota Sync/EntunesTM technology, the cars including owner’s manuals with instruction on these technologies. Both direct and indirect infringement are asserted.

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

The jury returned a verdict in this long-running saga over black silicon technology that SiOnyx disclosed to Hamamtsu under a nondisclosure agreement, finding that Hamamatsu breached the NDA and was unjustly enriched and awarding $1,377,109 in damages for these claims. They rejected Hamamatsu’s statute of limitations and equitable estoppel defenses. They further determined that SiOnyx employee Dr. Carey should be named as a co-inventor on the Hamamatsu patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Finally, they determined that Hamamatsu willfully infringed SiOnyx’s patent and that the patent is valid, but awarded no damages for the infringement.

Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC v. Scandir Inc. (19-cv-10999) and Skycore LLC (19-cv-11000).

Scanning Technologies accuses Scandir and Skycore of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,053,498 through sales of apps that permit scanning of barcodes using a smartphone or other mobile device and obtaining further information about the item containing the barcode. Scanning Technologies seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Pinek IP LLC v. Visonic Inc. (19-cv-10990).

Plano Texas entity Pinek, a patent holding company, sued Westford’s Visonic of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,233,256, which is directed to systems and methods for receiving a signal to trigger a pyroelectric activation system. Pinek asserts that Visonic’s Long Range Pet Immune PIR Motion Detector infringes at least claim 1 of the ‘256 patent, and seeks monetary, but not injunctive, relief. Pinek filed eight additional cases alleging infringement of the ‘256 patent in the last three months, one of which appears to have settled. Judge Talwani has been assigned to the matter.

Canon, Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corp., Inc. et al. (19-cv-10931).

Canon accuses Avigilon of infringing its 10,135,952 patent relating to surveillance video streaming. The two parties have already engaged in litigation, when Canon sued Avigilon in New York on a number of prior patents. Canon dismissed when Avigilon indicated its intent to move to transfer to Massachusetts, at which point Avigilon filed a declaratory judgment action in Massachusetts. Canon then moved to transfer to the Northern District of Texas, which was granted. At that point, Aviligon voluntarily dismissed the DJ action, with the Texas court refusing to award Canon its attorneys’ fees. Canon now bases jurisdiction in Massachusetts based in part on Avigilon’s having availed itself of the Massachusetts court based on its DJ filing.

Sophos Inc. v. RPost Holdings, Inc. et al. (13-cv-12856).

Judge Casper awarded Sophos $1,404,949.50 in attorneys fees. She had previously granted Sophos summary judgment of invalidity, and had determined that this was an exceptional case meriting an award of reasonable fees. Here, she determined that the hours and rates sought were reasonable, but that some small degree of block billing occurred, meriting a reduction of 10% but not the substantial reduction sought by RPost. She rejected RPost’s argument that the $1.56 million sought was excessive –RPost’s damages demand, together with the amount of discovery, expert discovery and motion practice, framed the potential stakes and demands for legal work, regardless of Sophos’ belief in the viability of the damages demand.

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

As this case goes to trail, the Court is dealing with the parties’ motions in limine. Hamamatsu moved to preclude testimony from one co-inventor, Dr. Mazur, to corroborate the testimony of a different coinventor. The Court had already found that Dr. Mazur could not prove that he was a coinventor due to a lack of corroborating evidence. Citing the lack of documentary corroboration and the fact that Dr. Mazur is an interested party, Hamamatsu asserted that he could not corroborate the alleged contribution of the other coinventor to the invention, and thus sought to preclude his testimony. Judge Saylor denied the motion, finding that the motion was effectively an untimely motion for summary judgment, and indicated that he (or the jury) would determine whether the evidence at trial, including Dr. Mazur’s testimony, was sufficient to establish inventorship.

He granted Hamamatsu’s motion to preclude SiOnyx from referring to the PTAB’s decision not to institute an inter partes review at trial. Hamamatsu’s request for inter partes review was declined entirely with respect to one of the asserted patents and was partially declined with respect to another patent. Judge Saylor determined that the decision on whether to institute an IPR was not a decision on the merits (and that the decision to partially decline may be a statutory violation under recent case law) and would thus have little probative value, would take considerable time to explain to the jury, and would carry substantial risk of misinterpretation and unfair prejudice.

Judge Saylor further, in response to a request made by SiOnyx at the April 16th status conference, precluded Hamamatsu from arguing that it was excused from meeting its obligations under the NDA at issue due to a prior material breach of the agreement by SiOnyx, finding that Hamamatsu had waived such an argument by failing to raise it in the joint pretrial memorandum. He denied SiOnyx’s motion to preclude Hamamatsu form raising a defense of equitable estoppel. He also overruled Hamamatsu’s objection to deposition testimony from a senior corporate officer regarding the contract, finding that it did not impermissible call for a legal conclusion. Trial on this matter began yesterday.