Lewis V. Popovski, Partner

On December 7, 2018, District Judge Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) ruled that Plaintiff Bobcar Media, LLC (“Bobcar”) had not demonstrated that it had standing to sue Defendant Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc. (“Aardvark”) for patent infringement because no competent evidence of a written assignment was produced.

On October 29, 2018, United States District Judge P. Kevin Castel (S.D.N.Y.) issued a decision granting Defendant Bloomberg's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss iSentium's patent infringement claim because it is directed to subject matter that is not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

On September 5, 2018, Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) issued a decision denying Plaintiff GeigTech's motion for preliminary injunction in its patent and trade dress infringement suit against Defendant Lutron.  GeigTech's motion for expedited discovery was granted-in-part.

On August 27, 2018 U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan (E.D.N.Y.) adopted in full the report and recommendation issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione following a Markman hearing as to the meaning of “movable” in U.S. Patent No. 8,636,507 (the “‘507 Patent”). 

On September 29, 2016, plaintiff OrthoArm Inc. (“OrthoArm”) filed suit against defendants Dentsply GAC International and Dentsply Sirona Inc. (together, “Dentsply”), alleging infringement of the ‘507 Patent by Dentsply’s “In-Ovation Mini” product.  The ‘507 Patent teaches an orthodontic bracket assembly used for dental braces that is “self-ligating,” meaning that it “is manufactured with a built-in, movable shutter that can hold the wire in place and eliminates the need for rubber bands or some other means to hold the archwire.”  Claim 1 requires that the shutter “be movable between a closed position . . . and an open position.”  The parties disputed the meaning of the term “movable.”

On August 8, 2018, Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Synaptive Medical, Inc.’s (“Synaptive”) motion to stay proceedings pending inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patent-in-suit.  Plaintiff Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. (“KSEA”) sued Synaptive, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,468,360 (“the ‘360 patent”).  Less than a month after filing its answer, Synaptive petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for IPR on the validity of the ‘360 patent.  The motion to stay was filed 19 days later.  The PTAB granted the Petition while the stay motion was pending.  Discovery, infringement and invalidity contentions, and claim construction have not yet begun in the case.

On July 19, 2018, United States District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Wine Enthusiast, Inc.'s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss counterclaims by Defendant Vinotemp International Corp. ("Vinotemp") for infringement of U.S. Design Patent No. D711,936 (the "D936 Patent") but allowed Vinotemp’s trade dress claim in a wine refrigerator to go forward.

On July 18, 2018, United States District Judge Vernon S. Broderick (S.D.N.Y.) denied a motion by defendant Coty Inc. (“Coty”) to dismiss a patent infringement suit brought by plaintiff Lennon Image Technologies, LLC (“Lennon”).

On June 7, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak (E.D.N.Y.) denied a motion by defendants—Quest USA Corp. (“Quest”) and Isaac Srour—to strike supplemental infringement contentions submitted by plaintiff PopSockets LLC (“PopSockets”).

On May 24, 2018, Judge Nelson S. Román granted Defendant United States Endoscopy Group, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).  On August 13, 2013, Plaintiffs CDx Diagnostic, Inc., Shared Medical Resources, LLC, and CDx Medical IP, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Defendant and various unidentified John Does, alleging infringement of Plaintiffs’ patents.  During discovery, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue in light of the recent Supreme Court case TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). 

On May 11, 2018, United States District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,340,189 (“the ’189 patent”), drawn to a device that is placed in a “position most convenient” to a user, were invalid as indefinite.

On April 5, 2018, Judge Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Rovi Guides Inc.’s (“Rovi”) motion to lift a stay related to U.S. Patent No. 8,122,034 (“the ’034 patent”), only one of five patents at issue in a case that was stayed pending completion of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. 

On March 27, 2018, District Judge Matsumoto (E.D.N.Y.) issued an 83-page decision on the parties' summary judgment briefing, which covered ten issues across three patents relating to multilayer ceramic capacitors.  The summary judgment briefing between Plaintiffs American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation ("ATC") and Defendant Presidio Components, Inc. ("Presidio") concerned laches; equitable estoppel; waiver; failure to mark; whether the cancellation of claims pursuant to an inter partes review precluded hearing arguments of invalidity on the claims; the availability of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284; indefiniteness; and non-infringement.

On January 25, 2018, United States District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC’s (“Serta”) motion to dismiss defendant Casper Sleep Inc.’s (“Casper”) counterclaim and affirmative defense.

On November 29, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s ("Seoul Viosys") motion for reconsideration of the Court's claim construction ruling.

On October 26, 2017, District Judge Robert W. Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) granted plaintiff Olaf Soot Design, LLC (“OSD”) leave to amend its June 25, 2015 Complaint against Daktronics, Inc. and Daktronics Hoist, Inc. (collectively, “Daktronics”).

On October 20, 2017, District Judge Vernon Broderick (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendants' Watters Design, Inc.'s, Essense of Australia, Inc.'s, and David's Bridal, Inc.'s motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue.

On September 19, 2017, United States District Court Judge William H. Pauley (S.D.N.Y.) issued a claim construction ruling on the word “about” across two patents directed to topical compositions containing naftifine.  Both the patent holder (“Sebela”) and the alleged infringer (“Taro”) sought claim construction for that term in the phrase “about 0.17 wt% trolamine.”  This phrase was in claim 17 of U.S. Patent 8,778,365 (“the ’365 patent”) and claim 21 of U.S. Patent 9,161,914 (“the ’914 patent”). 

RegenLab USA LLC (“RegenLab”) is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent 8,529,957 (“the ’957 patent”) entitled “Cell Preparations for Extemporaneous Use, Useful for Healing and Rejuvenation In Vivo.” RegenLab , who markets and distributes products based on the ’957 patent, accused Estar Technologies Ltd. (“Estar”), a manufacturer of an allegedly infringing product, and Eclipse Aesthetics LLC (“Eclipse”) and Healeon Medical Inc. (“Healeon”) (collectively, “Movants”), who distribute the accused product, of direct and indirect infringement of the ’957 patent.  In a separate and later filed lawsuit, RegenLab also accused Movant’s customers of infringement.  Additionally, RegenLab sent various “improper” communications to Movant’s non-party customers.

On August 4, 2017, District Judge Denise Cote issued a claim construction order that held the preamble of claim 1 of Lumos Technology Co., Ltd.'s ("Lumos") U.S. Patent No. 8,746,906 ("the '906 patent") is limiting and that a person of ordinary skill would know what "elastic material" means, and thus the relative phrase does not render claim 5 indefinite.

On July 12, 2017, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted a motion for reconsideration by Intellectual Ventures II L.L.C. (“IV”) of the Court’s prior Order of April 28, 2017.  At the time of the motion, the only patent at issue in the case was U.S. Patent No. 7,634,666 (“the ’666 Patent”).  The Court had originally denied JP Morgan Chase & Co.’s (“JPMC’s”) motion for summary judgement on noninfringement because while the accused devices didn’t actually infringe, there was a material issue of fact on “ whether the Crypto Cards are capable of infringing on the ’666 Patent.” (emphasis added).  IV asked the court to reconsider whether the accused devices actually infringed.

On April 26, 2017, District Judge Gregory H. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) found that one of the three defendants was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York and denied a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue from the Southern District of New York to the Middle District of Florida.

On December 7, 2016, Judge Katherine B. Forrest (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Red Box’s partial motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Verint’s inducement and willfulness claims concerning three of the six patents in suit. 

On November 29, 2016, District Judge Katherine B. Forrest (S.D.N.Y.) vacated the February 22, 2016 decision of Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, which had granted a motion to dismiss, brought by alleged infringers TNS Media Research, LLC and  Cavendish Square Holding B.V. (collectively, the declaratory judgment “Plaintiffs”), based on subject matter ineligibility of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

On September 30, 2016, District Judge Richard J. Sullivan (S.D.N.Y.) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding one of the two asserted patents invalid under principles of collateral estoppel.