By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., Civil Action No. 17-1386-LPS (D.Del. October 28, 2020), the Court, inter alia, denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement with respect to literal infringement and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., Civil Action No. 10-1067-LPS (D.Del., March 10, 2016), the Court denied defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on noninfringement, invalidity and damages with respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,987,610 (“the ‘610 patent”). 

By Opinion issued by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Pronova Biopharma Norge AS v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-286-SLR (D.Del., May 29, 2012), the Court set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law following a seven day bench trial in an infringement action which arose out

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Ladatech, LLC v. Illumina, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-627-SLR (D.Del., January 24, 2012), the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to defendant Illumina’s cluster generation products (alone) and the use of third-party prep kits with those

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., Civil Action No. 07-272-SLR (D.Del., September 15, 2011), the Court granted Defendant Palm Inc.’s (“Palm”) motion for summary judgment relating to its infringement counterclaims in part by finding no invalidity as to its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,803

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Autocell Laboratories, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., Civil Action No. 08-760 (D.Del., January 5, 2011), the Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the patent in dispute, and denied plaintiff’s motion for

On July 26, 2010, through an Opinion and Order entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson, the District of Delaware ruled on ten motions in the two related patent infringement actions captioned, Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-72-SLR, and Cisco Systems v. Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft mbH, Civil Action No. 09-232-SLR. The patents in suit relate to voice over internet protocol telephony. The problem claimed to be solved by the invention is how to use internet telephony without interrupting the real-time transfer of data. Id. at 16.

In light of the breadth and length of the Opinion, which is fifty-seven (57) pages, this posting focuses only on the Court’s ruling with respect to the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. In that regard, Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft (“SSBG”) sought partial summary judgment that Cisco’s 1861, 881 SRST and 888 SRST router products infringe claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,954,453 (“the ‘453 patent”), claim 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,483,431 (“the ‘431 patent”) and claims 69 and 84 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,902 (“the ‘902 patent”). Cisco sought summary judgment that its router products did not infringe the patents under any of the fourteen infringing scenarios identified by SSBG’s expert in his infringement report. Id. at 13. In short, the Court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and denied SSBG’s motion for summary judgment of infringement. Id. at 30-31. A complete copy of the Opinion is attached.
 


Continue Reading Judge Robinson Grants Cisco Systems’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement