Stross v. IvyMedia Corporation et al. (18-cv-10240).

Judge Sorokin denied IvyMedia’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, asserting that it is not responsible for the conduct alleged in the complaint. At the pleadings stage, where all factual allegations must be accepted as true, the Court cannot make the determination that IvyMedia is the improper party. He also denied both defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding the arguments to be factual in nature rather than a legal assertion that the alleged conduct fails to violate any of the cited copyright statutes.

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.

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.

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.

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.