Three weeks after recommending deferral of claim construction in a patent dispute between competing massage-device companies, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger recommended denying Defendant Tzumi’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Therabody’s claims of willful infringement of eight patents in its second amended complaint.  See Therabody, Inc. v. Tzumi Elecs. LLC, No. 21-CV-7803, 2022 BL 453263, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022).

On October 4, 2022, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted a motion to stay pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss in a parallel proceeding. In April 2022, Plaintiff Diatek Licensing LLC (“Diatek”) asserted that Estrella Media, Inc. (“Estrella”) infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,079,752 and U.S. Patent No. 8,195,828 (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”). Several months prior, Diatek filed a lawsuit in the same Court, asserting the same patents-in-suit against a different defendant, Accuweather (the “Accuweather Matter”). Accuweather filed a motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Estrella filed a motion to dismiss on identical grounds and requested a stay pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Accuweather Matter.

On August 31, 2022, District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. (S.D.N.Y.) found patent claims directed to a personal organizer with a location-based reminder function on a mobile phone to be directed to an abstract idea ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

On August 22, 2022, Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo (S.D.N.Y) granted a motion by solar tracker manufacturer FCX Solar, LLC (“FCX”) to compel the production of documents relating to Defendant FTC Solar, Inc’s (“FTC”) development of a “next-generation” solar tracking product. See FCX Solar LLC v. FTC Solar Inc., No. 1:21-CV-03556, 2022 BL 293064 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2022).

On July 15, 2022, United States District Court Judge Pamela K. Chen (E.D.N.Y.) issued a Memorandum and Order setting forth the construction of two disputed terms relating to garments in Shaf International v. First Manufacturing Co. Inc.—those terms being “back portion” and “substantially outermost extent.”  Judge Chen adopted constructions proposed by the Plaintiff, albeit with modifications, as discussed below.

On May 20, 2022, Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on several discovery disputes inSure Fit Home Prods., LLC v. Maytex Mills Inc.

On May 2, 2022, Judge Valerie Caproni (S.D.N.Y) granted a motion by international fashion company Chanel Inc. to stay proceedings in a patent infringement action brought by Molo Design, Ltd. pending an inter partes review proceeding that had just been filed.  See Molo Design Ltd. v. Chanel, Inc., 21-CV-01578 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2022).

On April 6, 2022, U.S. Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks (E.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC’s (“Cartessa”) motion to stay the litigation pending the resolution of IPRs filed against each of the five asserted patents. Plaintiffs Synkloud Technologies, LLC and Serendia, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought suit against Cartessa in August 2021, alleging infringement of five patents generally directed to “radio frequently microneedling devices used for medical and aesthetic dermatological treatment for tightening skin.” Slip Op. at 1.

On February 24, 2022, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall found patent claims directed to pressure-activated self-cooling mats for pets to be invalid as indefinite in a case filed by The Green Pet Shop Enterprises LLC against Fine Promotions.  Judge Hall focused on two claim terms: “predefined distance” and “endothermically deactivated.”

On January 10, 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc’s (“Bytemark”) motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, asserting two new patents after the prior patents-in-suit had been found invalid, against Defendants Xerox Corp., ACS Transport Solutions, Inc., Xerox Transport Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Xerox”), Conduent Inc., and New Jersey Transit Corp.

On October 14, 2021, United States District Judge Lorna G. Schofield (S.D.N.Y.) construed the scope of U.S. Design Patent No. 668,091 (“the D091 Patent”) in a dispute between Sure Fit Home Products, LLC, SF Home Décor, LLC, Zahner Design Group, Ltd., and Hookless Systems of North America, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Maytex Mills, Inc. (“Defendant”). This decision follows the Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction request by Plaintiffs, addressed previously.

On September 28, 2021, United States District Judge Edgardo Ramos (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant JLC Tech LLC’s (“JLC”) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Judge Ramos also denied Plaintiff Shenzen OKT Lighting Co., Ltd.’s (“OKT”) motion to file a second amended complaint.

On August 12, 2021, United States District Court Colleen McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff GeigTech East Bay LLC’s (“GeigTech”) motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss Defendant Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.’s (“Lutron”) counterclaims, and sua sponte stayed the case until the end of the year pending post grant review of a related patent.

On May 26, 2021, United States District Judge Lorna G. Schofield (S.D.N.Y.) denied a preliminary injunction request from Plaintiffs Sure Fit Home Products, LLC, SF Home Décor, LLC, and Zahner Design Group, Ltd. (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Maytex Mills, Inc. ("Defendant") infringes their design patent and trade dress by selling a hookless shower curtain.

On April 29, 2021, District Judge Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant salesforce.com, Inc.’s ("Salesforce") motion for transfer of venue to the Northern District of California ("the NDCA")—where it is based—pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

On February 26, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara (E.D.N.Y.) issued a claim construction ruling in Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLC v. SnappyScreen, Inc. (“Sunscreen Mist” and “SnappyScreen” respectively) that Sunscreen Mist alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,918,897 (“the ’897 patent”), which relates to a vending machine that dispenses and sprays sunscreen lotion on customers. The parties presented the Court with only one disputed claim term: “means to store sunscreen lotion.”  The only question before the Court was whether the patent identified sufficient structure for storing sunscreen lotion.

On February 16, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione (E.D.N.Y.) recommended granting plaintiff Nationwide Sales and Services Inc.’s (“Nationwide”) motion for judgment on the pleadings as to patent misuse counterclaims asserted by defendant Steel City Vacuum Co. (“Steel City”).

On January 25, 2021, United States District Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant Microsoft Corp. ("Microsoft")'s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to FRCP 50(b) or a new trial pursuant to FRCP 59.

On December 15, 2020, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Perry Street Software, Inc.’s (“Perry Street”) motion to compel arbitration of defendant Jedi Technologies, Inc. (“Jedi”) patent infringement counterclaim.

On December 7, 2020, United States District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff SIMO Holdings Inc.’s (“SIMO”) motion to use four confidential documents in a related trade secret dispute pending in Shenzhen, China, and instead imposed a $40,000 sanction on SIMO for disclosing the confidential documents to Chinese counsel.

On October 5, 2020, United States District Judge I. Leo Glasser (E.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Alexsam, Inc.’s (“Alexsam”) motion for reconsideration of the court’s June 17, 2020 summary judgment ruling.

On September 18, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that an employee’s apartment in the jurisdiction did not constitute a place of business of Defendant Safety Vision even though Safety Vision’s website suggested that it was. 

On August 7, 2020, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.) recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff William Araujo (“Plaintiff”) for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) be granted with respect to induced patent infringement, but denied with respect to the allegations of direct infringement.

On July 23, 2020, United States District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted in full the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses. The procedural history of the case and analysis of Judge Moses’ report were discussed in an earlier post here. Judge Gardephe reviewed the R&R for clear error even though the parties waived their right to judicial review. Judge Gardephe agreed that the Defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in the district because: 1) service of process was procedurally proper, 2) there was a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction, and 3) the exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with constitutional due process principles. He noted that Defendant was properly served under § 387(1)(b) of New Zealand’s Companies Act of 1933. 

On July 13, 2020, District Judge Matsumoto (E.D.N.Y.) entered a claim construction order construing several claim terms recited in Plaintiff Uni-Systems, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,789,360 (“the ’9360 patent”) and 7,594,360 (“the ’4360 patent”), which relate to retractable roof design and are asserted against a number of defendants including the United States Tennis Association National Tennis Center (collectively, “Defendants”).