Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement

123 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• JHO Intellectual Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Ignite Int'l, Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-20
  The court held that Dr. Stanton's expert opinions are admissible, except for those concerning social media advertising similarity, due to insufficient reliability and helpfulness in that specific area.
• JHO Intellectual Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Ignite Int'l, Ltd.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-05-09
  The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of genuine dispute regarding the plaintiffs' standing to sue and the prior rights of the SRO mark, thus denying summary judgment on those issues.
• E-Z Dock, Inc. v. Snap Dock, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-03
  The court held that a stay of patent proceedings against a distributor is appropriate pending resolution of a parallel case against the manufacturer, applying the customer suit exception to the first-filed rule.
• Gramercy Holdings LLC v. Borozan
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-10
  The court held that federal patent law does not preempt state law claims for tortious interference and FDUTPA violations when the plaintiff adequately alleges the patent holder acted in bad faith by asserting claims that are objectively baseless and subjectively in bad faith. The
• Invisasox, LLC v. Everything Legwear, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-06-12
  The court held that the defendant did not meet its burden to show a likelihood of confusion, thus denying its motion for partial summary judgment.
• Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc.
  831 F. Supp. 2d 1109· S.D. Fla.· 2013-09-09
  The court held that the patent was invalid and unenforceable due to misrepresentations made during prosecution and that the defendant did not infringe the patent.
• Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software, Inc.
  745 F. Supp. 2d 1237· M.D. Fla.· 2010-09-29
  The court held that the Risk Digest articles qualify as prior art, the original '613 patent cannot be infringed after surrender, and genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on anticipation of certain claims by the Benson Article.
• Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier Election Solutions, Inc.
  739 F. Supp. 2d 1340· M.D. Fla.· 2010-09-15
  The court held that the Risk Digest articles qualify as prior art, the surrendered '613 patent cannot be infringed, and genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on anticipation of claims 49, 85, 93, and 94 of the '449 patent by the Benson Article.
• Harris Corp. v. Fed. Express Corp.
  698 F. Supp. 2d 1345· M.D. Fla.· 2010-03-22
  The court held that the term 'airport based' is not indefinite and means 'located at an airport,' and that the term 'ground based' is not indefinite and means 'located on the ground.' The court also found that the contested transmitting data terms require transmission of sufficie
• Hamilton Prods., Inc. v. O'Neill
  492 F. Supp. 2d 1328· M.D. Fla.· 2007-06-15
  The court held that the patent is invalid for indefiniteness because the claims do not distinctly claim the subject matter, and the claimed invention was obvious.
• Quantachrome Corp. v. Micromeritics Instrument Corp.
  230 F. Supp. 2d 1309· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-13
  The court granted summary judgment for Quantachrome, finding patent claim 27 invalid due to anticipation and obviousness, and also granting non-infringement for other claims based on a prior stipulation.
• Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc.
  190 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 2002-02-28
  The court held that the patent claims, when properly construed, do not cover Andrx's product because the term HPMC should be limited to high-density, high-viscosity grades used for release control, not the low-grade HPMC used by Andrx for coating.
• Lentek Int'l, Inc. v. Sharper Image Corp.
  164 F. Supp. 2d 1302· N.D. Fla.· 2001-09-24
  The court denied Sharper Image's motion for summary judgment of design patent infringement for both the '551 and '001 patents, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding infringement. The court granted SI's motion for summary judgment on Lentek's claims of invalidity and u
• Quantachrome Corp. v. Micromeritics Instrument Corp.
  97 F. Supp. 2d 1181· S.D. Fla.· 2000-05-23
  The court held that claim 27 of the '146 Patent was not invalid for obviousness, as the prior art, alone or in combination, did not suggest the placement of the sample and expansion chambers within an integral environment of high thermal conductivity.
• Biovail Corp. Int'l v. Andrx Pharms., Inc.
  158 F. Supp. 2d 1318· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-06
  The court found that the defendant's proposed generic drug product did not literally infringe the asserted patent claims because it did not contain a wetting agent in admixture with diltiazem at the time of manufacture, and also found that the defendant's product was substantiall
• Insight Instruments, Inc. v. A.V.I.-Advanced Visual Instruments, Inc.
  44 F. Supp. 2d 1269· M.D. Fla.· 1999-03-24
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant corporation because its business activities in Florida were insubstantial and isolated, and the lawsuit did not arise from those activities.
• Quantachrome Corp. v. Micromeritics Instrument Corp.
  37 F. Supp. 2d 1354· S.D. Fla.· 1999-02-17
  The court held that Quantachrome's Ultrapycnometer 1000 literally infringes claim 27 of Micromeritics' '146 Patent, and that the patent is not anticipated by the prior art Stereopycnometer.
• The Crom Corp. v. Crom
  677 F.2d 48· 9th Cir.· 1982-05-12
  The court held that the submission of patent coverage to the jury was proper, expert testimony was admissible, and the denial of a new trial was not an error. Attorney fees were not awarded.
• Silberline Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Int'l Nickel Co., Inc.
  569 F.2d 1217· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-22
  The denial of a discovery protective order, which also sought to disqualify counsel, is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it does not finally determine claims of right separable from the main action and too important to be denied review.
• Hickory Springs Mfg. Co. v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co., Inc.
  509 F.2d 55· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-14
  The dissenting judge would reverse the jury's finding of patent infringement, believing the accused device does not infringe the Fredman patent.
• Falcon Lock Co. v. Best Universal Lock Co.
  362 F.2d 221· 9th Cir.· 1966-05-24
  The court held that the accused Falcon housing did not infringe the Best patent and that Best's good faith charges of infringement and refusal to sell did not constitute unfair competition. The court modified the judgment to be specific to the accused housing.