Revised Local Rules Become Effective December 1, 2009

The Western District adopted revised local rules, including some important revisions to CR 7, the rule governing motion practice.   These revisions take place December 1, 2009. 

Here is a summary of the changes to CR 7:

• CR 7(d)(1), the rule governing the consideration of motions and saying that certain motions shall be noted for consideration on the day they are filed, now expressly includes both motions for the clerk to enter default, and a motion for default judgment.
•  CR 7(d)(2), the rule setting briefing schedules for all other motions, gets rid of the so-called "seven-day" motions, and says that all motions not falling under 7(d)(1), shall be noted for a Friday, and that certain motions shall be noted for consideration "no earlier that the second Friday." Note that this list is dramatically reduced from the sort of motions that used to be considered on a seven day calendar.  The thought here was that there was simply not enough time for parties to oppose motions that were listed.  The motions that can be considered on a shorter schedule, albeit not as short as the old "seven-day" motions, include 

1. Motions for relief from a deadline;
2. Motions or protective orders;
3. Motions to seal under CR 5(g)

• Papers  in opposition to any such motion shall be due the Wednesday before the noting date.
• CR 7(d)(3) says that all other non dispositive motions shall be noted for consideration on the third Friday.
• CR 7(d)(4), a compeltely new rule, limits motions in limine to one per side, and eliminates reply.  This rule also includes a requirement for counsel to meet and confer in advance of filing the motion in limine, and that the motion include a certification that "the movant has in good faith
  conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve which
  matters really are in dispute."  
• The new rule further provides that "A good faith effort to confer requires a face-to-face meeting
  or a telephone conference. If the court finds that counsel for any party, or a party
  proceeding pro se, willfully refuses to confer, fails to confer in good faith, or fails to
  respond on a timely basis to a request to confer, the court may take action as stated in GR
  3 of these rules."
• The page limit for Motions in Limine is expressly set at 18 by new rule 7(e)(5).  This is probably sufficient for most cases.  I would advise counsel to approach the Court with a stipulation to expand that page limit in special cases.
• CR 7(f)(1) motions to file overlength brief shall be filed "as soon as possible."  This eliminated the old rule requiring at least three judicial days before the underlying motion or brief is due.
• CR 7(h), motions for reconsideration, this rule was changed to allow fourteen days for the filig ot motions for reconsideration, expanded from 10.

That's all for CR 7, folks. There are other important changes to the rest of the rules, so be sure to read them yourself.

Report for Washington State Patent Cases: March 2008

Patent case filings in Washington State remained strong through March. There were four cases filed total; three in the Western District and one in the Eastern District. This is one better than March 2007, which only had three patent cases total. So far, Washington is substantially ahead of where it was last year at this time in terms of the number of patent cases filed. Through March last year, there were only nine (9) patent cases filed. This year's total through March is eighteen (18), that's an increase of 100%.

Here is a list of cases for March.

Zacklift International Inc v. Kooima (WA Eastern) Judge Van Sickle

Progressive International Corporation v. CKC International LLC (WA Western) Judge Theiler

Cequint Inc v. TECMobile Software LLC (WA Western) Judge Jones

CRS LLC v. Valve Corp. (WA Western) Judge Donohue

AIPLA Submits Amicus Brief in Bilski Case, Arguing for Broad Patentable Subject Matter

Here is a Link to the AIPLA Brief in the Bilski case. My post on this case is found here.

This is from the AIPLA post on the case:

AIPLA on April 7, 2008, filed an amicus brief with the en banc Federal Circuit, arguing that it is improper to apply the subject matter categories at 35 U.S.C. §101 narrowly to require that a process claim must be implemented by an apparatus in order to be patent-eligible under Section 101. In re Bilski, en banc Fed. Cir., No. 2007-1130.
According to the brief, Section 101 broadly encompasses anything under the sun made by man, and is limited only by the judicially-developed exclusions for laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. The brief maintains that this formulation provides a flexible rubric that promotes disclosure and adapts to yet unforeseen technologies, while retaining the safeguard against overbreadth in the traditional patentability requirements of novelty, non-obviousness, and sufficient disclosure to the public.

Preliminary Injunction in Tacoma Lantern Case Reversed by the CAFC

Note: This post was modified on 3/27/2008 to reflect the fact that the opinion is nonprecedential.

In this case for infringement of US 7,118,245, the USDC, WDWA in Tacoma granted the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on July 3, 2007. In ordering the preliminary injunction, the district court (Judge Burgess) noted that expert testimony provided that the accused device was "identical in all respects (within + or - .005) to the Patented Device, except that the Accused Device lacked the ‘plurality of ports’ in the reflector that would allow the central light to augment the lateral light." Additionally, the district court briefly discussed a covenant not to compete between the parties, concluding that "because a serious question has been raised on the issue of the Covenant Not To Compete . . . another basis for preserving the status quo pending final resolution of the issue has been shown."

Today in a nonprecedential opinion authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judges Rader and Schall, the CAFC reversed finding that substantial questions existed as to whether the accused devices infringed under a doctrine of equivalents analysis, and that even if the covenant not to compete were enforceable, it had expired.

Enforcing IP Rights in China: It's Not as Hard as You Think

Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog posted recently about a report from Joff Wild, editor of Intellectual Asset Magazine, author of the IAM Blog, and contributor to Thomson's Knowledge Newsletter. Joff's report is entitled "Patent Focus Report for 2008," and it looks at the patent activity for China, Europe, Japan, India and the U.S., and provides some interesting findings. Of particular interest to this blog are the numbers for China. Washington State is one of China's largest and fastest growing trading partners. In 2004, total trade between Washington state and China was in excess of $20 Billion (couldn't find more recent numbers, so if you know them, please post them in the comments). Businesses in Washington State will be pleased to read the findings from Joff's report concerning IP enforcement in China. Who would have thought that a patent infringement plaintiff has a better chance at winning a case in Shanghai than Marshall, Texas!

From the Report's section on China:

"During 2007, SIPO received 694,153 patent applications covering three types of patent: invention, utility and design. This number may at first sight seem huge, but it does not tell the full story. The overwhelming number of applications — almost 450,000 — was for utility and design patents, which are not subject to substantive examination. Only invention patents receive full scrutiny and there were 245,161 of these submitted during 2007.
What is interesting to note, however, is the increasing proportion of invention patent applications coming from within China. In 2006, they represented just over 58 per cent of the total number of applications to SIPO, in 2007 this increased to almost 63 per cent. This increase was despite an increasing number of applications from abroad: 92,107 compared to 88,172 in 2006.[A] study of reported decisions in IP cases during 2007 suggested that if rights owners appear before the Chinese courts they have a 75 per cent chance of having the eventual decision go in their favour. This is the case whether the plaintiff is Chinese or from abroad. During 2006, there were more patent cases filed in China than in any other country, and while 98 per cent of these involved only Chinese companies, in the two per cent featuring a plaintiff from outside the country, the foreign entity ended up victorious 90 per cent of the time."

Western District Sees Significant Uptick in Patent Cases Filed For January 2008

January started 2008 with a red-hot increase in the number of patent cases filed in the Western District. There were 10 patent cases filed last month in Washington State, 9 in the Western District. That's more than the combined total for the same month in 2007 (3 patent cases in Jan.), 2006 (2 patent cases in Jan.), and 2005 (3 patent cases in Jan). With 10 cases already in January of this year, patent filings so far equal about 20% of last years' total filing ... in one month! It's hard to make any predictions at this point, but if we keep it up at this rate, it will be a busy year. Here are the cases filed last month.

Zodiac of North America Inc et al v. 1181969 Ontario Limited et al (Co8-0157)(Martinez) U.S Patent No. 6,006,690 (Mixed-Hull inflatable Boat).

Laughing Rabbit Inc v. J&S Marketing LLC (C08-0123) (Lasnik) U.S. D375,372 (Pocket Flashlight).

Sterling International, Inc. v. Hiscox et al (ED of Wash.) (Co8-0022) (Shea) U.S. Patent No. 5,557,880 (Yellow Jacket Trap).

Airbiquity Inc v. AT&T Inc et al (C08-0094) U.S. Patents 6,681,121 (Circuitry for Activating a Modem in a Cellular Telephone); 7,206,305 (Software Code for Improved In-Band Signaling for Data Communications Over Digital Wireless Networks); 7,221,669 (Cellular Telephone having Improved In-band Signalling).

Cequint Inc v. Pint-Sized Apps (C08-0080) (Robart) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,200,212 and 6,353,664 (Telephonic Communications Products).

Cequint Inc v. Incipher Inc (C08-0081) (Zilly) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,200,212 and 6,353,664 (Telephonic Communications Products).

Trinity Glass International Inc v. ODL Incorporated (C08-05018) (Bryan) U.S. 5,636,484 (Hurricane Door).

Fascinations Toys & Gifts Inc v. Levitation Arts Inc et al (C08-0028) (Robart) U.S. Patent No. 5,168,183 (Levitation Devices)

Neometal WA Inc v. Industrial Strength Corporation (C08-05009) U.S. Patent. No. 6,167,725 (Threadless Jewelry Assembly).

Procyte Corporation v. Johnstone et al (08-0012) (Zilly) U.S. 6,262,105 (Method of Enhancing Hair Growth).

Judge Pechman Denies Request for Relief from Scheduling Order

Based on my site data, a lot of you are looking for information on how certain judges in the Western District may handle scheduling in a patent case. I've posted here and here on patent scheduling orders used by Judges Zilly and Robart. Here is a post from a case currently pending before Judge Pechman, WizKids Inc. v. Wizards of the Coast (07-809). This case involves US pat. no. 7,201,374 for a "Method and Article of manufacturer for Collectible Game." The patent is owned by Wizards of the Coast, who was sued by Wizkids in a declaratory judgment action alleging non-infringement and invalidity of the '374 patent. Judge Pechman issued a scheduling order setting forth deadlines for (among others) claim construction briefing, preliminary contentions concerning claim construction, and a Markman hearing (attached below, PDF). Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff Wizkids asked for relief from this order, contending that the court did not need to engage in complicated claims construction to hear its motion for summary judgment on the issue of invalidity. Judge Pechman disagreed. From the order denying leave to file an early summary judgment motion:

"Plaintiff claims support or this departure from the case schedule from a recent Supreme Court case which held '[w]here, as here the content of the prior art, the scope of the patent claim, and the level of ordinary skill in the art are not in material dispute, and the obviousness of the claim is apparent in light of these factors, summary judgment is appropriate.' KSR Int’l v.Teleflex Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1745-46 (2007). Plaintiff wishes to file a motion seeking summary judgment on grounds of obviousness based on prior art. Plaintiff’s argument (and its reliance on KSR) is valid only if the scope of the patent claims and the level of ordinary skill of the art are not in dispute. Plaintiff argues that they are not, but the argument and the evidence are not persuasive. . . . It is apparent from the parties’ pleadings that claim construction will assist in the determination of obviousness. Both the correspondence which they exchanged prior to initiation of the lawsuit and the arguments regarding construction of claim terms in their briefs are evidence that the scope of the claims here is still in dispute. Furthermore, the discovery process has just begun and no depositions (including those of Plaintiff’s game experts who are testifying as to the 'ordinary level of skill' required in this matter) have been taken."
WizKidsOrderLeavetofileearlySJ.pdf
wizkidspechmanschedulingorder.pdf
WizCoastsClaimsContentions.pdf

2007 Patent Litigation Statistics for Washington State

Because Blogger dates my posts when they are started (as opposed to when they are finished), the purpose of this post is to provide a link to my completed report on patent litigation statistics in Washington State. I finished the report today. Enjoy.

Report on Washington State Patent Cases 2007

There were a total of 49 patent cases filed in the State of Washington in 2007. That is an increase of over 48% from 2006 (33 total patent cases filed in 2006) and an increase of over 16% from 2005 and 2004 (both years had 42 patent cases filed). Cases filed in the Eastern District of Washington in Spokane continued to lag far behind those filed in the Western District. In 2007, just 2 of the 49 cases were filed in Spokane; that's just 4%. Tacoma saw five patent cases in 2007, about 10% of the total patent case load.

Here is the Judge break down for 2007 patent cases, listing current judges as of December 2007: Judge Zilly (9); Judge Jones (6); Judge Lasnik(4); Judge Pechman (5); Judge Robart (6); Judge Donohue (2); Judge Bryan (1); Judge Leighton (2); Judge Shea (2); Judge Theiler (2); Judge Settle (2); Judge Martinez (4); Judge Burgess (2); Judge Coughenour (1); Judge Whaley (1). Based on this data, Judge Zilly has the most 2007 patent cases on his docket (not bad for a Judge on senior status). The District's newest judge, Judge Jones, is tied for second with Judge Robart with a total of 6 patent cases from 2007.

According to Justia, there was at least one patent case tried all the way to verdict in Washington in 2007. That case was Baden Sports v. Molten USA, Inc. (06-210MJP). Judgment was entered against Molten for $8M on a jury verdict of willful infringement. Judge Pechman entered a limited injunction against Molten, and there are pending motions for contempt. The patent-in-suit was U.S. 5,636,835 for a padded basketball. This case was filed February 13, 2006, and tried to verdict in under 18 months.

Most cases filed in Washington from January 2004 through the end of 2007 state were settled or dismissed voluntarily without prejudice. So far, there is no uniform scheduling order entered for patent cases in any Federal Court in Washington. Some Judges, including Judge Robart, have a standing order for patent cases setting a schedule for disclosures and briefing leading up to a Markman hearing. Judge Robart's order is attached below (PDF). My quick scan of the scheduling orders entered by all judges in patent cases show that these cases are often scheduled with a trial date set 12-18 months out (from the scheduling order). Generally, the parties are given a lot of freedom to propose a case schedule.

Nationally, Washington saw just under 2% of all patent cases filed in 2007. According to Justia, there were about 2,800 patent cases filed nationally in 2007. The busiest jurisidictions are located in California (532 patent cases in 2007) and Texas (456 patent cases in 2007). Other jursidictions with busy patent dockets in 2007 included New Jersey (197); Illinois (157), and New York (164). Regionally, more patent cases were filed in Washington in 2007 than in Oregon (23) or Idaho (6).

While Wisconsin (specifically, the Western District in Madison) received a reputation in 2007 as a patent "rocket docket" jurisdiction, the entire state saw just 39 patent cases filed in 2007.

Here is a list of all patent cases filed in Washington in 2007 naming the parties, the assigned judge, a brief statement of the current status of each case (as of mid December 2007), and the patent-in-suit.

Laughing Rabbit Inc. v. John Wilson et. al.
December 28, 2007
Martinez
No Answer

National Products Inc v. Gamber-Johnson LLC
December 11, 2007
Jones
No Answer
7298611 Portable Device Docking Station

Aerotel Ltd et al v. T-Mobile USA Inc.
December 6, 2007
Robart
No Answer
4706275; Telephone System

F5 Networks Inc v. A 10 Networks Inc
December 4, 2007
Lasnik
No Answer
6473802 Method and System, for Storing Load Balancing Information with an HTTP Cookie

Fluke Corporation v. Ratner
December 3, 2007
Donohue
No Answer
D554,152; Ergonomic Pressure Calibration Pump


Plant 21 LLC v. Cascade Greenhouse et al
November 19, 2007
Bryan, reassigned to Settle 11/27/2007
No Answer
PP14852; PP13545; Plant Patents

Berg Companies Inc v. Basic Concepts Inc et al
November 19, 2007
Shea
No Answer
5316175 Foldable Spill Collector Container; 7168588 Multi Section Containment; 6880720 Portable Containment


F5 Networks Inc v. Coyote Point Systems Inc
November 13, 2007
Pechman
No Answer
6473802 Method and Syste, for Storing Load Balancing Information with an HTTP Cookie

BooginHead LLC v. Twin Beginnings LLC
November 13, 2007
Theiler
JSR due 1/14/2008
6978918 Teather for Objects Such as Infant Drinking Device

Teragren LLC v. Smith & Fong Company
November 5, 2007
Leighton
JSR due 2/6/2008
5543197 Parallel Randomly Stranded Laminated Bamboo Boards and Beams

Gebr Tigges GMBH & Co KG et al v. EYS Metal Sanayi Ve Ticaret LTD. STI et al
October 12, 2007
Lasnik
Answer filed, JSR filed 12/11/2007
5009795 Process for the Dewatering of Solids Suspended in Water and Screw Press Separator Therefor

Flexiworld Technologies Inc v. Skype Inc
October 12, 2007
Leighton, reassigned to Settle on 10/16/2007
JSR due 1/14/2008
7099304 Apparatus, Methods and Systems for Anonymous Communication.

Nelson v. K2 Inc et al
October 11, 2007
Lasnik
No Answer Filed
5603522; Wide Short Ski

Mukai v. AG Design & Associates LLC
October 11, 2007
Donohue, reassigned to Pechman
2 day bench trial set for 11/10/2008
7118245 Lantern


Canon USA Inc et al v. Screentone Systems Corporation et al
October 1, 2007
Martinez, reassigned to Jones
Motion to stay, transfer or dismiss pending (noted 12/21/2007) Motion before MDL Panel filed 12/27
5166809 Computer Printer Technology

ShareBuilder Corporation et al v. FOLIOfn Investments Inc
September 20, 2007 (DJ)
Martinez
Rule 41 Dismissal on 11/19/2007
7110971; 6996539; 6601044; 7117176; Online Brokerage

Simulab Corporation v. Synbone AG
September 12, 2007
Zilly
Answer filed 12/07/2007
6780016; Human Surgical Trainer and Methods for Training

Tien Hsin Industries Co Ltd et al v. Cane Creek Cycling Components et al
August 15, 2007
Zilly
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Denied on 11/09/2007; Motion to Transfer pending (noted 12/7/2007)
5095770; Steering Assembly for Wheeled Vehicle

Scolr Pharma Inc v. Nutra Manufacturing Inc et al
July 30, 2007
Zilly
Rule 41 Dismissal; 9/28/2007
6090411; Monolithic Tablet for Controlling Drug Release; 6337091; Matrix for Contolled Delivery of highly Soluble Pharmaceutical Agents


Campbell Pet Company v. Miale et ala
July 25, 2007
Leighton
Order Dismissing case for lack of Personal Jurisdiction entered 11/02/2007; Notice of Appeal filed; 11/15/2007
6199508; 6230662; Pet Stretcher


Unigen Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Target Corporation
July 16, 2007
Bryan, transferred to Lasnik, reassigned to Jones
JSR Entered 10/17/2007
7,108,868; Isolation of Dual Cox-2 and 5-lipoxygenase; 7,192,611, Identification of Free-B-Ring Flavonoids as Potent Cox-2 Inhibitors


Q13 Inc et al v. Eveready Industrial Services Corp
July 13, 2007 (DJ)
Lasnik
Motion for staged discovery pending
6,318,194 Inspection of Tubes Conduits Pipelines


Prokop Labs LLC v. Staples Inc et al
July 13, 2007
Pechman
JSR due 1/10/2008
5,566,913 Wrist Apparatus


Proven Winners North America LLC v. Cascade Greenhouse et al
July 5, 2007 (transferred from MD Florida)
Coughenour, reassigned to Burgess 7/26/2007
Nothing since transfer
PP11,835; PP13,545; PP13,510, PP15,607; PP14,037: PP13,887;
Plant Variety

Joescan Inc v. LMI Technologies Inc
July 5, 2007
Bryan
Preliminary Injunction Denied on 9/5/2007; Jurisdiction challenged, and motion denied on 9/05/2007 Trial set 11/6/2008
5734172; 5854491; 5,670,787; Method and Apparatus for Electro Optically Determining the Dimensions Location and Altitute of Objects

Frontier Paper and Packaging Inc v. Washington Packaging Supply Inc
July 2, 2007 (transferred from SD of Indiana)
Zilly
JSR filed 12/14/2007; Motion for Summary Judgment Pending, noted 9/7/2007
5,820,268; 6,007,467; 7,021,524;6,080,096 Methods and Apparatus for Packaging Parishable Goods

Alliance Packaging LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com
June 28, 2007
Theiler
Proof of service filed 11/05/2007
7,219,797 Box with Insert that Extends From A Side and That Divides the Box Into Compartments and Methods for Forming and Using

Fascinations Toys & Gifts Inc v. Plant Cell Technology Inc
June 25, 2007 (DJ)
Coughenour, reassigned to Pechman on 8/01/2007
Stip. and Order dismissing with prejudice 12/11/2007
5,803,014


Precor Incorporated et al v. Smooth Fitness et al
June 21, 2007
Donohue
Answer filed 11/28/2007
5,383,829 Stationary Exercise Device

InstantService.com Inc v. Rood et al
June 12, 2007
Robart
Answer Filed 12/12/2007
6,915,336, Real Time Internet Communication System

Unigen Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
June 8, 2007(removed fromKCSC)
Pechman, reassigned to Jones
Remanded to State Court, 9/21/2007
Disputed Ownership/inventorship under 256, Patent not yet issued

High Maintenance Bitch LLC v. Uptown Dog Club Inc
June 8, 2007
Coughenour, reassigned to lasnick, reassigned to Zilly
Dismissed for lack of Personal Jurisdiction, 10/17/2007
D475,163
D475,162
Dog Collar

High Maintenance Bitch LLC v. B A Barker Inc
June 8, 2007
Zilly
Stip and Order to Dismiss With Prejudice
D475,163 D468,491
Dog Collar

High Maintenance Bitch LLC v. Innovative Spotlight Inc
June 8, 2007
Coughenour
Rule 41 dismissal.
D475,162 Dog Collar

CRS LLC v. IGN Entertainment Inc
June 7, 2007
Zilly
Complaint amended 7/9/2007; Motion Partial SJ Invalidity, pending. Noted 12/21/2007
6,073,124 Method and System for Securely Incorporating Electronic Information Into Online Purchasing Application

Precor Incorporated et al v. Diamondback Fitness Inc
June 5, 2007
Theiler, reassigned to Martinez, Reassigned to Jones
Answer due
5,383,829 Stationary Exercise Device


WizKids Inc v. Wizards of the Coast Inc
May 25, 2007 (DJ)
Pechman
Complaint Amended 7/03/2007; Motion for Leave to File Motion For SJ, pending, noted 10/29/2007 (attached M for SJ)
7,201,374 Method and Article of Manufacture for Collectible Game


Sunstream Corporation v. Reimann & Georger Corporation
May 23, 2007
Benton, reassigned to Robart 7/12/2007
Rule 41(a) Dismissal after Order to Show Cause
6,976,442 Variable Range Apparatus for Watercraft Lift

Home Debut Inc v. Justsnooping.com Inc
May 10, 2007 (transferred from ND Cal.)
Whaley
Motion for Protective Order Pending: noted 12/14/2007
Trial 9/29/2008
6,839,880 Electronic Property Viewing System

F & G Research Inc v. Microsoft Corporation
April 12, 2007
Theiler, reassoigned to Robart 4/18/2007, reassigned to Martinez
Case Consolidated with 07-524-RSM
5,313,229 Mouse and Method For Concurrent Cursor and Scrolling Position

A G Design & Associates LLC v. Trainman Lantern Company Inc et al
March 30, 2007
Burgess, reassigned to Settle, 7/31/2007, reassigned to Burgess 8/31/2007
Motion for Preliminary Injunction Granted: 7/3/2007; Notice of Appeal filed 7/24/2007; Case reopened 9/04/2007 Motion for Contempt Pending, noted 10/25/2007
7,118,245
Trainman’s Lantern

Unigen Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Walgreen Co
March 29, 2007
Lasnik, reassigned to Jones 11/29/2007
Motion PartialsSJ (invalidity) pending, Noted: 12/21/2007
Motion for Sanctions (Rule 11) Pending, Noted: 12/21/2007
7,108,868 Isolation of a Dual Cox-2 and 5-Lipoxygenase Inhibitor from Acacia

MSC International Inc et al v. Norpro Inc
March 23, 2007
Robart
Case dismissed w/o prejudice, Rule 41(a)
D421,908 Spout

DX/DY Voice Processing, Inc. v. Teligence Corporation et al
February 22, 2007
Shea
Motion to dismiss denied; Motion for leave to file amended complaint granted 8/28/2007; Trial: 12/1/2008
7,116,768 Collect Callback

Unigen Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Leiner Health Products Inc et al
February 7, 2007
Robart
Stip. and Order Dismissing Claims with Prejudice: 7/10/2007
7,108,868 Isolation of a Dual Cox-2 and 5-Lipoxygenase Inhibitor from Acacia

National Products Inc v. Vision Tech America Inc
February 5, 2007
Robart
Consent Judgment entered: 6/18/2007
6,666,420 Suction Cup Having Compact Axial Installation and Release Mechanism

Alliance Packaging LLC v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation et al
January 24, 2007
Pechman, reassigned to Zilly, 11/28/2007
Markman hearing: 2/7/2008; Trial: 7/28/2008; Motion to Exclude Expert Witness (noted 1/11/2008)
7,156,287 Container with Integrated Pour Spout


National Products Inc v. JVC Americas Corp et al
January 9, 2007
Martinez
Stip. and Order Dismissing Case with Prejudice August 21, 2007.
6,666,420 Suction Cup Having Compact Axial Installation and Release Mechanism


MIXXER Inc v. Mvisible Technologies Inc
January 5, 2007
Zilly
Stip. and Order Dismissing with prejudice, May 1, 2007.
7,113,981 Cellular Telephone Download Locker


RobartStanding%20OrderinPatentCase.pdf