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

Closing out this dispute, at least at the District Court, Final Judgement was entered awarding SiOnyx:

  • $1,377,109 in contractual and unjust enrichment damages plus $1,752,017 in pre-judgment interest for a total of $3,129,126;
  • post-judgment interest at 2.4% pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1961, with an accounting of post-verdict sales to occur;
  • judgment that the ‘467 patent was willfully infringed;
  • addition of Dr. James Carey as co-inventor of the ‘467 patent;
  • ownership of nine U.S. patents; and
  • a permanent injunction barring infringement of all ten patents by Hamamatsu.

Let the appellate process begin…

A Note on This Blog.

When I discuss newly-filed complaints in this blog, I try to discuss the factual allegations and legal claims found in the complaint in a straight-forward manner, as they are presented by the plaintiff(s). It is important to recognize, however, that these are merely allegations – nothing at the time of filing has been tested or proven, and the defendant(s) have not yet responded. Nothing I discuss should be construed as accepting or agreeing with any pled facts or claims, or as an opinion as to the allegations (unless expressly set forth in a particular post).

I rarely post about answers or counterclaims at the time they are filed, primarily because the filing of answers is difficult to track. Further, many cases settle prior to an answer being filed, and more without any significant action from the court. Settlements are frequently confidential, and in any event are rarely filed with the court, so the outcome of many cases remains unknown.

In light of all of this, I ask everyone to remember that a complaint is just that – a one-sided presentation of an event, shaded to favor the complaining party, that may or may not turn out to be true. Today’s earlier post on Sobol v. Canavan serves as a good example of this.

Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Omilia Natural Language Solutions, Ltd. (19-cv-11438).

Nuance, a designer of automated speech recognition (ASR) and transcription technologies, accuses Greek company Omilia of infringing eight patents related to ASR and conversational interactive voice response systems. Nuance states that Omilia was a licensee of the technology for use outside of the United States, but continued using the technology when the license terminated, subsequently expanding into the U.S. Nuance further alleges that Omilia was put on specific notice of the patents-in-suit by letter of October 8, 2018, but has refused to substantively respond or cease its activity.

Litigation Training in the District of Rhode Island

The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island today announced a training program on opening statements and closing arguments.  The session will run from May 20th through the 24th at the federal courthouse in Providence, and will provide CLE credits for those of you in states requiring them.  These sessions tend to fill up quickly, so anyone interested should sign up here.

Courts to Remain Open Through January 18

The Federal judiciary has announced that they will remain fully open through at least January 18th, pushing the date at which they will run out of money due to the shutdown back a week from their earlier estimates.  Once their existing funds dry up, the courts should remain open using limited funds provide by the Antideficiency Act, with each court making its own determination on how to handle the reduced funding status.  As yet, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has not announced their plan, should the shutdown continue through next Friday.

Federal Courts remain open for now.

U.S. Federal Courts remain open, despite the government now being in the second week of the shutdown.  Courts are expected to remain unaffected through about January 11th, using court fees and other funding not requiring passage of an appropriations bill.  Should the shutdown linger, the Courts would continue to operate in some fashion under the Anti-Deficiency Act, with each Court determining its staffing needs.