Speedfit LLC et al v. Woodway USA, Inc. et al
| Aurel A. Astilean and Speedfit LLC |
| Douglas G. Bayerlein and Woodway USA, Inc. |
| 2:2013cv01276 |
| March 11, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
342
ORDER granting 328 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Jury Demand filed by Woodway USA, Inc. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' jury demand is GRANTED. In addition, the court declines to empanel an advisory jury. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 6/8/2020. (Brasky, Michael)
|
|
Filing
315
ORDER granting in part, and denying in part 289 defendant's Motions in Limine. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court:Motion in Limine 1: GRANTS defendant's first motion in limine< /i>. Plaintiffs may not put evidence of or testimony concerning Speedfit's sales and profit margins before the jury in support of their unjust enrichment claim, including as a theory of damages.Motion in Limine 2: GRANTS defendan t's second motion in limine to the extent plaintiffs intend to have Astilean testify regarding Speedfit's sales. Defendant's motion is otherwise MOOT.Motion in Limine 3: DENIES defendant's third motion in limine. Plaintiffs may introduce evidence of Woodway's sales and profits as it relates to plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim. Any risk of confusing the jury will be mitigated by a jury instruction clarifying the scope of permissible damages for unjust enrichment liability.Motion in Limine 4: DENIES defendant's fourth motion in limine as to plaintiffs' damages calculations.Motion in Limine 5: GRANTS defendant's fifth motion in limine. Plaintiffs are precluded from directing ad hominem remarks toward defendant at trial. Motion in Limine 6: GRANTS defendant's sixth motion in limine. Plaintiffs are precluded from asserting entitlemen t to punitive damages.Motion in Limine 7: Finds that defendant's seventh motion in limine is MOOT.Motion in Limine 8: Finds that defendant's eighth motion in limine is MOOT.Motion in Li mine 9: Finds that defendant's ninth motion in limine is MOOT.Motion in Limine 10: GRANTS defendant's tenth motion in limine. Plaintiffs are precluded from introducing evidence relating to trade secret misa ppropriation or any other unpled claim. However, the court's order granting defendant's tenth motion in limine shall not be construed as barring plaintiff from moving for leave to amend the Supplemental Complaint pursuant to the Fed eral Rules of Civil Procedure.Motion in Limine 11: Finds that defendant's eleventh motion in limine is largely MOOT. To the extent plaintiffs intend to introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove their unju st enrichment claim, the court reserves decision and will evaluate the admissibility of such evidence at trial. Motion in Limine 12: Declines to consider defendant's twelfth motion in limine because it is WITHDRAWN. Motion in Limine 13: Finds that defendant's thirteenth motion in limine is largely MOOT. To the extent plaintiffs plan to introduce the unexecuted confidentiality agreements at trial, the court reserves decision and will consider any relevance and admissibility issues at the appropriate time.Motion in Limine 14: GRANTS defendant's fourteenth motion in limine, to the extent it seeks to preclude plaintiffs from using the license agreement or other evi dence in the New York or Connecticut Cases to portray Astilean in a sympathetic or positive light. Motion in Limine 15: GRANTS defendant's fifteenth motion in limine. Plaintiffs may not introduce evidence or testimony that contravenes the court's rulings. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 1/9/2020. (Brasky, Michael)
|
|
Filing
241
ORDER granting 211 Daubert Motion. For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum & Order, defendant's motion is GRANTED. Whelan's opinion as to enablement as expressed in the Report is precluded. His and Blair's opini ons as to derivation and Oblamski's status as an inventor of the patents-in-suit is likewise precluded. Having resolved the parties' expert evidentiary disputes, the parties are ordered to confer and schedule a conference to update the court as to the prospect for settlement of this matter, or to discuss dispositive motion practice or setting a trial date. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/29/2019. (Mazzurco, Vincent)
|
|
Filing
239
DECISION AND ORDER granting in part 203 Motion to Strike. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 3/28/2019. (Tomlinson, A.)
|
|
Filing
189
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. As discussed in the attached memorandum and order, upon consideration of the parties respective arguments, as well as the intrinsic record, expert testimony, and controlling precedent, the court finds that Claim 1 of the 016 Patent must be construed as limited to the structures specifically described in the specification, i.e., those disclosed in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and their equivalents. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/20/2017. (Flores, Diego)
|
|
Filing
143
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 126 motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in part. The parties shall confer and jointly advise the court by letter via ECF how they intend to proceed consistent with this opinion no later than January 9, 2017. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 12/28/2016. (Newman, Alanna)
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER re 134 Letter. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 12/14/2015. (Kandel, Erin)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER granting 117 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is granted. Plai ntiffs shall file their Third Amended Complaint by October 23, 2015. The deadline to submit summary judgment motions is hereby adjourned without date. After defendant has responded to the Third Amended Complaint, the parties are referred to Magistr ate Judge Tomlinson to schedule a conference and set new deadlines for discovery. If the parties wish to schedule briefing for summary judgment motions after completion of discovery, they may request a pre-motion conference as provided in this court's motion practices. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/19/2015. (McNulty, John)
|
|
Filing
121
Minute Order for proceedings held before Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto: Motion Hearing held on 7/14/2015. John Vodopia, Esq. appeared for plaintiffs and Kadie M. Jelenchick and Jeffrey N. Costakos, Esqs. appeared for defendant Woodway. The court heard oral argument from both parties on plaintiffs' motion to correct inventorship (ECF No. 110 ). For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs' motion is granted. (Court Reporter Charlene Heading.) (Alagesan, Deepa)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, defendant Woodway's motions to dismiss or transfer plaintiffs' patent infringement claims in favor of the pending Eastern District of Wisconsin action are denied. Defen dant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' state law claims is denied as to the breach of contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and conversion claims, and granted as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim. Defendants shall answer the Ame nded Complaint within the time specified by the Federal Rules, and, per Judge Tomlinson's September 3, 2014 Minute Order, counsel shall contact Judge Tomlinson's chambers within three days to set the remaining discovery schedule. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/10/2014. (Alagesan, Deepa)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
