Last year we reported on the patent dispute between Plaintiff SIMO Holdings, Inc. (“SIMO”) and Defendants Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited and uCloudlink (America), Ltd. (collectively, “uCloudlink”).  (See posts from June 2019 and October 2019.)  With the trial concluded—and with numerous pre- and post-trial disputes on appeal to the Federal Circuit—all was momentarily quiet on the district court front.  The parties, however, recently returned to the Southern District of New York with a fresh controversy.

On April 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses (S.D.N.Y.) issued a recommendation that Plaintiff Evriholder Products LLC (“Evriholder”) be awarded: (1) damages under 35 U.S.C. § 289 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. D524,612 ("the '612 patent") by Defendant Simply LBS Ltd. Co. (“Simply LBS”); (2) prejudgment interest; (3) costs; and (4) a permanent injunction forbidding infringement against a default judgment defendant.

On April 6, 2020, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Aardvark Event Logistics, Inc’s motions to exclude plaintiff Bobcar Media, LLC’s expert testimony and for summary judgment, dismissing all of Bobcar’s remaining claims.

On March 23, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Edgardo Ramos granted a motion to dismiss counterclaims and strike affirmative defenses because they were not plausible and did not meet the heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

On March 6, 2020, United States District Court Judge Gregory H. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Humor Rainbow Inc.’s (“Humor”) motion to dismiss. The Court found that the asserted claim of U.S. Patent 6,685,479 (“the ’479 patent”) was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to “the abstract idea of a matchmaking algorithm.”

On January 22, 2020, United States District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)’s motion for summary judgment as to non-infringement, but granted Microsoft’s motion as to willful infringement, holding that willfulness should not go to the jury without record evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe recently issued an Order of Default against Defendant Deep Blue Health New Zealand Ltd. (“Deep Blue Health”). Deep Blue Health had been accused of patent infringement by Plaintiff American Infertility of New York, P.C. (“American Infertility”), yet never defended the litigation. American Infertility sought compensatory damages of $10,000, attorneys’ fees of $24,250, consulting expenses of $19,250, and costs of $4,272.60. On December 30, 2019, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses (S.D.N.Y.) recommended to Judge Gardephe that American Infertility be awarded $4,273.60 from Deep Blue Health, representative of the $4,272.60 of costs and only $1 of compensatory damages.

On January 13, 2020, District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Chegg Inc.'s ("Chegg") motion to dismiss Plaintiff NetSoc, LLC's ("NetSoc") complaint on the ground that NetSoc is collaterally estopped from pursuing its claims of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 after a decision by the Northern District of Texas finding the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

On October 2, 2019, District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Quora Inc.’s (“Quora”) motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.

On September 30, 2019—more than two years after Plaintiff, Electric Mirror, LLC (“Electric Mirror”) first brought suit for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York—United States District Judge Andrew L. Carter granted Defendants Project Light, LLC, Project Light, Inc., Prospetto Light, LLC, and Prospetto Lighting, LLC’s (collectively, “Project Light”) motion to dismiss for improper venue.

The case had been stayed for more than a year pending the outcome of a related proceeding before the United States International Traded Commission (“ITC”). Once the ITC-related stay was lifted, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for, inter alia, improper venue. Plaintiff challenged the timeliness of that motion, as well as the merits.

On October 2, 2019, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Green Dot Corporation's ("Green Dot") motion to dismiss Plaintiff Western Express Bancshares, Inc.'s ("Western Express") on the grounds that the complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to state a plausible claim of patent infringement and that the patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

On September 19, 2019, U.S. District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall denied an appeal by the defendant in a litigation to correct the inventorship of patents of rulings by Magistrate Judges Gary R. Brown and Peggy Kuo that the defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege as to certain disputed communications.

On September 11, 2019, United States District J. Paul Oetken denied Defendants Tekno Products, Inc. and Max Deluxe Limited (“Max Deluxe”)’s motion for judgement on the pleadings in a patent infringement action pending in the Southern District of New York.  Defendants argued that Plaintiff MIEH, Inc. (“MIEH”) had failed to join in the action the assignee of the disputed U.S. Patent No. 9,731, 212 (the “’212 Patent”), entitling Max Deluxe to a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).  The Court disagreed, for now.

On August 6, 2019, United States District Judge Joan M. Azrack denied Plaintiff Andrea Electronics Corporation (“Andrea”)’s motion to lift the stay in Andrea Electronics Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-cv-5220 (E.D.N.Y.) and, accordingly, granted Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”)’s cross-motion to continue the stay.  The stay will remain in place pending final resolution of the IPR proceedings before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On July 2, 2019, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff NuCurrent Inc.'s ("NuCurrent") motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to have Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") withdraw and dismiss its IPR petitions.

Trial is underway between Plaintiffs American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corp. (together, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”), following the Court’s May 30, 2019 ruling on the parties’ Daubert motions and May 31, 2019 ruling on the parties’ various motions in limine.  U.S. District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto (E.D.N.Y.) is presiding over the trial that began on June 10, 2019.

On June 4, 2019, Judge Lorna G. Schofield (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on claim construction disputes in an action brought by Plaintiff EMED Technologies Corporation (“EMED”) against Defendant Repro-Med. Systems, Inc. (“RMS”). EMED alleged infringement by RMS of U.S. Patent No. 9,808,576 (“the ’576 patent”), which relates to a medical device for the treatment of Primary Immunodeficiency Disease.

On April 22, 2019, Judge Colleen McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiffs Ferring’s (“Ferring”) motion for summary judgment on invalidity due to lack of written description and lack of enablement and motion for summary judgment on non-infringement in Ferring B.V. v. Serenity Pharm., LLC.  Ferring filed a declaratory judgment suit against defendants Serenity and Reprise (“Defendants”) for patent invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement with respect to the three patents in suit in the District of Delaware.  The suit was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York, where the Defendants answered the Amended Complaint and asserted counterclaims, including patent infringement. 

On April 23, 2019, United States District Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant Dell Inc.'s motion to dismiss Data Technologies' amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

On March 31, U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on various summary judgment motions of Plaintiffs Au New Haven, LLC and Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. (together, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant YKK Corporation and its affiliates (together, “YKK”).  Judge Wood’s decision relied on U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s (S.D.N.Y.) March 19, 2019 ruling on the parties’ motions to exclude each other’s expert witnesses.

On March 13, 2019, District Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on Defendant European Home Design, LLC’s (“European Home”) motion for summary judgment, as well as the parties briefing on claim construction of certain disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 8,720, 218 (“the ’218 Patent”).  In this suit, Plaintiff Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC (“Green Pet Shop”) sued European Home claiming that it had infringed its patent for a cooling platform for animals.  You got it:  A bed for pets that is capable of temperature regulation.

On February 8, 2019, United States District Judge Edgardo Ramos (S.D.N.Y.) issued a decision granting Defendants AAVN and Next Creations Holding's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Globe Cotyarn's federal law claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act, and New York State  law claims of unfair competition, tortious interference with a business relationship, and deceptive acts, with leave to amend.

On January 22, 2019, Judge Robert W. Sweet (S.D.N.Y.) issued a claim construction opinion in Ferring B.V. v. Serenity Pharm., LLC following a Markman hearing.  Plaintiffs Ferring (“Ferring”) moved for claim construction of disputed preamble claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,405,203 (the “’203 Patent”) and 7,579,321 (the “’321 Patent”), two patents owned by Defendants Serenity (“Serenity”).

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 25, 2018, District Judge Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.) granted Nike, Inc.’s (“Nike”) motion to dismiss Personal Beasties Group LLC’s (“Personal”) complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the claims of  U.S. Patent 6,769,915 (“the ’915 patent”) are directed to  ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.