On Apri1 15, 2019, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant St. Lawrence Communications, LLC ("SLC")'s motion for summary judgment that the scope of a covenant not to sue does not preclude a separate lawsuit for patent infringement against LG Electronics, Inc. ("LG") in the Eastern District of Texas. In the E.D. Tex. lawsuit, SLC and its successor-in-interest, EVS Codec Technologies, LLC ("ECT") allege that LG infringes a patent that covers an audio coding standard called "Enhanced Voice Services" ("EVS").

On April 1, 2019, United States District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Wine Enthusiast, Inc.'s motion for sanctions against Defendant Vinotemp for filing an allegedly frivolous counterclaim of design patent infringement.

On February 25, 2019, District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto (E.D.N.Y.) ruled on claim construction and indefiniteness disputes in an action brought by Plaintiff Bedgear, LLC against Defendant Fredman Bros. Furniture Co., Inc. d/b/a as Glideaway Sleep Prods. Plaintiff alleged infringement by Defendant of four patents pertaining to pillow covers and bedding systems: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,646,134;  8,887,332; 9,015,883 ("the '883 patent"); and 9,155,408.

On January 30, 2019, District Judge Matsumoto (E.D.N.Y.) ruled that Defendant Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) was estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that were  not included in its petition for inter partes review against U.S. Patent No. 6,144,547 (“the ’547 patent).

On January 2, 2019, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ("CDCA") an action brought by Plaintiff NextEngine, Inc. against Defendants NextEngine, Inc. (not a typographical error) and Mark Knighton ("Knighton"). Plaintiff alleged infringement by Defendants of four patents pertaining to 3-D laser scanning and two registered trademarks—"NEXTENGINE" and a gear-shaped logo—in addition to unfair competition under the Lanham Act.

On December 5, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold (E.D.N.Y.) recommended denying a motion for summary judgment by defendant Mastercard International Inc. (“Mastercard”), as well as plaintiff Alexsam, Inc.’s (“Alexsam”) motion to dismiss Mastercard’s counterclaims alleging invalidity and noninfringement of two of Alexsam’s patents.

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 12, 2018, Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak issued a report recommending that defendants Quest USA Corp.'s and Isaac Srour's (collectively, "Defendants") motion for a stay pending inter partes review ("IPR") be granted.

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 18, 2018, United States District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted in part and denied in part Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)’s motion to dismiss Holotouch, Inc. (“Holotouch”)’s complaint.  Microsoft moved to dismiss on the grounds: 1) that the allegations of direct infringement in the complaint were insufficient to state a plausible claim of action; and 2) that one of the two asserted patents had expired long before the complaint was filed.

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 May 8, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.) granted plaintiffs AU New Haven, LLC's ("AU") and Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc.'s ("Trelleborg") motion for a preliminary anti-suit injunction concerning an action pending in Japan.

On March 26, 2018, United States District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken granted a motion to transfer venue in Peerless Network, Inc. v. Blitz Telecom Consulting.  The focus of the opinion was on whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York based on a “device the size of a breadbox and the shelf on which it [sat].”

On March 1, 2018, United States District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendants’—Charter Communications, Inc. and Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC (together, “Charter”)—motion to dismiss a patent infringement action brought by plaintiff Quantum Stream Inc. (“Quantum”).

On November 20, 2017, District Judge John G. Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.) approved a prosecution bar for “any individual who gains access” to confidential material.  In addition, Judge Koeltl determined that post-issuance proceedings, such as IPRs, “are properly subject to a prosecution bar.” However, Judge Koeltl lifted the bar for anyone that does not participate in amending the scope of claims in post-issuance proceedings.

On November 20, 2017, United States District Court Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto issued a claim construction ruling in a suit between two fitness-related companies:   Speedfit LLC (“Speedfit”) and Woodway USA, Inc. (“Woodway”).  The sole term in dispute was “means for slackening” as it was recited in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,343,016 (“the ’016 Patent”) – a patent related to a manually-powered treadmill involving a closed-loop belt designed to maintain a curved running surface.

On October 27, 2017, District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Comcast Corp.'s ("Comcast") motion to stay the case pending resolution of inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB").

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”). 

On September 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn (S.D.N.Y.) issued a claim construction ruling on, among other things, the construction of the word “on” across four different patents directed to semiconductor lasers.  In three of the four patents, the court concluded that the term on means “‘directly on or directly connected to the other element or layer, or intervening elements or layers may be present.’”

On August 10, 2017, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) construed 29 claim terms in a dispute between Defendant Comcast Corporation, et al. (“Comcast”) and Plaintiff Rovi Guides, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“Rovi”).  The claim terms were construed pursuant to the ongoing litigation between Comcast on Rovi concerning the alleged infringement by Comcast of six patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,713,595, 9,172,987, 8,433,696, 7,895,218, 8,122,034, and 7,966,864 (the “’595,” “’987,” “’696,” “’218,” “’034,” and “’864” patents, respectively).  The patents covered “a number of different fields, including interactive program guides (“IPGs”), remote control, and content searching.” 
 

On August 2, 2017, Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Infinity Headwear & Apparel, LLC’s (“Infinity”) motion for summary judgment as to patent infringement, false patent marking and false advertising and denied Defendant Franco & Sons, Inc.’s (“Franco”) motions objecting to Magistrate Judge Ellis’s orders.  However, Judge Oetken sua sponte stayed the patent infringement claim in view of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)’s recent decision affirming the ex parte reexamination rejection of the asserted claims.