Following a trial in which Rolling Optics was found to have willfully induced infringement of several Crane patents, Judge Sorokin ruled on a number of post-trial motions. He denied Rolling Optics’ motion for judgment of no inducement and lack of notice as a matter of law, finding the motion a mere rehashing of the motion for summary judgment that was previously denied. He likewise denied Rolling Optics’ motion for JMOL that certain claims were anticipated, finding the jury’s determination on the credibility of the parties’ experts dispositive. Judge Sorokin denied Crane’s motion for attorneys fees under 35 USC 285, finding that Rolling Optics’ litigation conduct was not exceptional, particularly given that the injunction that would likely result from losing would jeopardize Rolling Optics’ very existence. He awarded Crane treble damages, finding that Crane had demonstrated that Rolling Optics had copied their products with extensive knowledge of Crane’s patent portfolio and that Rolling Optics took no steps to ensure that they were not infringing valid patent claims – indeed, Rolling Optics continued shipping products into the United States seven months after it had been advised by its legal team to cease doing so. Finally, Judge Sorokin entered a permanent injunction, finding that Rolling Optics was directly competitive to Crane such that continued infringement would result in harms that could not be adequately remedied at law.
MedIdea sued Depuy for patent infringement connected with total knee replacement prostheses in the Northern District of Illinois. Following the TC Heartland decision, the case was transferred to Massachusetts, where it has undergone contentious discovery. Judge Sorokin denied MedIdea’s request for detailed royalty reports, in light of MedIdea’s expert acknowledging that documents already produced provided sufficient information to calculate damages. He also refused to compel production, at no cost to MedIdea, of different sizes of the accused products, finding no authority to require the provision of thousands of dollars of products for free when the sole difference was the size. Judge Sorokin also denied MedIdea’s demand that DePuy produce a 30(b)(6) witness to testify on the nature of DePuy’s search for documents and choice of keywords for searching electronic records, in light of DePuy’s statement that only outside counsel participated in that task and in light of MedIdea’s delay of eight months form the time when the schedule required the parties to meet and confer on electronic discovery issues. Finally, Judge Sorokin granted DePuy’s motion to quash subpoenas to two inventors of prior art identified by Depuy and that served as the basis for institution of an IPR proceeding. Judge Sorokin noted that MedIdea had been obliged to identify any relevant witnesses in its initial disclosures more than a year prior, and had failed to seek to supplement its disclosures. Moreover, the reference was more than ten years old, and was but one of many references cited by DePuy, but was the sole reference on which the IPR was granted, creating an inference that MedIdea was seeking their depositions in the litigation to circumvent rules that would prohibit such in the IPR proceeding itself.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.