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

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.

Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC (16-cv-10914).

Abiomed filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of six Maquet patents relating to guidable intravascular blood pumps, and Maquet brought infringement counterclaims. Judge Saylor partially granted Abiomed’s motion to compel supplemental responses to Abiomed’s invalidity contentions. Maquet had originally asserted 98 claims, and Abiomed provided invalidity contentions as to all 98 claims. In response to a court order, Maquet narrowed the case to 35 claims; pursuant to the court’s order, Maquet will have to further narrow their case to 18 claims following the Markman order, after which Abiomed will have to narrow its list of primary references to 12. Maquet objected to responding to Abiomed’s invalidity contentions because they necessarily cover claims and prior art that will ultimately not be a part of the trial, and also asserted that Abiomed improperly sought expert analysis prematurely. Judge Saylor disagreed, noting that Maquet had the benefit of seeing Abiomed’s invalidity contentions prior to its initial narrowing of claims and that therefore Abiomed should get to see Maquet’s validity contentions prior to reducing the references it was asserting. Judge Saylor did, however, postpone the date by which Maquet would have to respond to the date that it would have to provide its final listing of 18 asserted claims, and limited Maquet’s response to validity contentions concerning those 18 claims. In a separate order, Judge Saylor denied Abiomed’s motion to compel discovery of Maquet’s patent assessments and valuations. Maquet had produced a presentation given to a different heart pump company that included reference to a proposal made by Maquet that made reference to the amount Maquet believed the company could obtain from Abiomed should the company acquire the patents. Abiomed, believing that this would reveal a substantially lower valuation than Maquet was seeking in damages, sought additional information on how Maquet came to the valuation in the proposals; Judge Saylor accepted Maquet’s representation that it had no non-privileged valuations to produce.

Global Merchandising Services, Ltd. v. Various John Does et al. (18-cv-11861).

Global merchandising, who had exclusive rights to the OZZY OSBOURNE mark, filed a preemptive trademark suit in advance of Osbourne’s upcoming show at the Xfinity Center in Mansfield, MA. Global seeks a TRO and preliminary injunction prohibiting the unknown defendants from making, distributing or selling merchandise bearing the mark or Osbourne’s likeness. As with the majority of these types of cases, Judge Zobel has been assigned to handle this matter.

MedIdea, L.L.C. v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (17-cv-11172).

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 t otestify 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.

Sadowski v. EH Publishing Inc. et al. (18-cv-11819).

Professional photographer Christopher Sadowski accuses EH Publishing of infringing a copyright in his photograph of a gas leak explosion at a New York high school that was originally published by the New York Post in 2015. Sadowski alleges that EH Publishing utilized the photograph in an article on the explosion that appeared in print and on-line versions of EH Publishing’s Campus Safety Magazine, and of removing the attribution to Sadowski that appeared in the Post article.

Fotohaus, LLC v. Invested Development, LLC et al. (18-cv-11813) and Tocci Building Corp. (18-cv-11814).

Fotohaus accuses investment management firm Invested Development of infringing the copyright in a photograph of hands holding a lit lightbulb taken by Fotohaus manager Daniel Foster in connection with a webpage on sustainable energy, and of refusing to take the photograph down despite numerous requests. Fotohaus also sued Tocci, accusing the construction management firm of infringing its copyright in a photograph of a sandwich in connection with an article on packing a lunch for health and financial benefits. Fotohaus asserts alteration of digital copyright management information as well as copyright infringement.

Lickerish, Ltd. v. Rue La La, Inc. et al. (18-cv-11783) and Metro Boston, LLC et al. (18-cv-11790).

Lickerish is a British photographic syndication company that licenses professional photographs worldwide. Lickerish accuses on-line clothing retailer Rue La La of infringing its copyright in an Andrea Carter Bowman photograph of Lottie Moss, sister of supermodel Kate Moss, and of altering the digital copyright management information associated with the photograph, and accuses Metro Boston of infringing its copyright in a Richard Guaty photograph of model and Baywatch actress Kelly Rohrbach. Judge Gorton has both cases.