CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. et al

Plaintiff: CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
Defendant: MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. and MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
Case Number: 2:2009cv00290
Filed: March 6, 2009
Court: Pennsylvania Western District Court
Office: Patent Office
County: Allegheny
Presiding Judge: Nora Barry Fischer
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 35:271 Patent Infringement

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
October 1, 2010 175 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION (regarding consturction for disputed claim terms); An appropriate Order will follow. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/1/10. (jg)
October 27, 2010 187 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER indicating that Defendants shall search the emails and related documents maintained by Defendants' CEO and CTO, respectively, and shall produce the responsive documents found by November 5, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/27/10. (tpk)
November 29, 2010 195 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORNANDUM ORDER indicating that Presently before the Court is a discovery dispute concerning Plaintiffs request that Defendants designate and prepare a witness capable of testifying to Defendants corporate structure and tax strategy. 158 . Defen dants have objected to this discovery on the basis of relevance. 161 . They further argue that the requested information is likely to be subject to the attorney-client privilege and is duplicative 174 ). The issue has been fully briefed and the Court heard argument on August 27, 2010. (Docket Nos. 158 ; 161 ; 169 ; 174 ). The Court understands that, despite further discussion, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement on this issue and desire a ruling from the Court. Therefo re, upon consideration of the parties arguments, and for the following reasons, the Court overrules Defendants objections and finds that Defendants shall make available a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for deposition in regard to Defendants corporate structur e and tax strategy (details more fully stated in said Order); Therefore, having found that Plaintiffs discovery request is appropriate, coupled with Defendants failure to produce a witness in accordance with the strictures of Rule 30(b)(6), it is her eby ordered that Defendants shall produce a witness to provide answers to Topic 1 of Plaintiffs Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding Sales, Marketing, and Financial Matters within thirty (30) days of this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/29/10. (jg)
March 18, 2011 259 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons stated within, Defendants' Motion to Strike 252 is denied; that Defendants may, in accordance with Local Civil Rule 56(D), respond to the allegations of paragraphs 102-125 of Plaintiff's " ;Response to Marvell Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment," (Docket No. 233 ), by 3/24/11 at 5:00 p.m. As part of its calculation, the Court weighed Defendants' request that they be provided 10 days from today's Order to file their supplemental response. (Docket No. 252 at 4). However, in settling on the chosen date, the Court expresses a desire that this case continue on the existing briefing and argument schedule. (See Docket Nos. 225 , 235 ). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/18/11. (jg)
September 28, 2011 306 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated within, the Court finds that claims 1-5 of the 839 Patent and claims 1-2 of the 180 Patent are not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,201,839 and 6,438,180 218 is therefore denied. An appropriate Order Follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 9/28/11. (jg)
April 10, 2012 337 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within and despite its initial concerns, the Court finds that the Group I claims of the 839 and 180 Patents are not invalid under § 112 of the Patent Act. Therefore, Marvell' ;s motion (Docket No. 318 ) is denied. The parties shall adhere to the schedule already in place for the remainder of expert discovery, the final round of summary judgment motions, and any Daubert motions. An appropriate order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/10/12. (jg)
June 12, 2012 423 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Defendants' "Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration Re: Marvell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity" 339 is denied. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/12/12. (jg)
August 24, 2012 441 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that this opinion addresses two of the pending motions because they raise similar issues. The first is the Defendants' (collectively, "Marvell") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement and No Damages with Respect to Extraterritorial Conduct. (Docket No. 356 ). In that motion, Marvell requests that this Court determine that it (Marvell) cannot be found liable for infringement of any methods claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,201,839 (" ;the '839 Patent") or 6,438,180 (the '180 Patent") (collectively, "the CMU Patents") for chips that are never used in the United States, and that Plaintiff ("CMU") cannot recover for sales of such chips as a ma tter of law. (Docket No. 357 at 1). CMU challenges this motion, arguing essentially that it is entitled to recover damages for these foreign sales, which only arose due to domestic infringement. (See Docket No. 428 at 1).The second motion is si milar. In that motion, Marvell requests that the Court find that it (Marvell) cannot be found liable for infringement for the use of the patented technology by non-party Seagate Technology. (See Docket No. 360 ). As with the extraterritorial conduc t motion, Marvell also requests that this Court find that it (Marvell) cannot be liable for damages arising from its sales to Seagate. (Id.). As expected, CMU challenges this proposition. (See Docket Nos. 397 , 430 ). After consideration of the pa rties' arguments and the filings pertaining to these motions, the Court has determined that both motions (Docket Nos. 356 , 360 ) should be granted, in part, and denied, in part, in accordance with the indications more fully stated in said Opinion. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg)
August 24, 2012 443 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, the Court grants 352 Marvell's motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to Claims 11, 16, 19 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,201,839 and Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,438,180. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg)
August 24, 2012 445 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that as to the motion filed by Defendants Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, "Marvell") to exclude the proffered expert testimony of Dr. Christopher Bajorek. (Docket No. 364 ), for reasons more fully stated within, said motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part. (detials more fully stated in said Opinion). As Dr. Bajorek"s report does include information on which he is not qualified to provide an e xpert opinion, he will be precluded from offering such opinions at trial. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a proper limiting instruction in accord with this opinion and the following order 446 . Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg)
August 24, 2012 447 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that as to Plaintiff Carnegie Mellon University's ("CMU") Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony Regarding Purported Acceptable, Non-Infringing Alternatives (Docket No. 373 ), for reasons stated more fully within, said Motion is denied. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg)
August 24, 2012 449 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony of Creighton G. Hoffman (Docket No. 370 ), for reasons stated more fully within, said Motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part. The mot ion is granted, insofar as Mr. Hoffman shall not be permitted to provide any testimony as to his opinions labeled Opinion I and Opinion III. The motion is denied, insofar as Mr. Hoffman shall be permitted to testify as to the opinions expressed in O pinion II. This memorandum opinion does not address Mr. Hoffman's Opinion IV, which was not challenged. The Court shall order the filing of a proposed limiting instruction. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg)
August 24, 2012 451 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Catherine M. Lawton (Docket No. 367 ) is granted, in part, and denied, in part, in accord with the preceding discussion. Th e motion is granted to the extent that Ms. Lawton may not testify to total revenue, total profit, or total margin, except to start her analysis. The motion is denied in all other respects, such that Ms. Lawton may refer to the total number of sales, total apportioned revenue, average price per chip, operating profit per chip, and apportioned profit per chip in making her calculations. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a proper limiting instruction in accord with this Opinion and the following Order. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg)
September 21, 2009 54 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION re 25 MOTION to Transfer Case To The Northern District of California filed by MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. indicating that, for the reason stated within, Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California is denied. An appropriate order to follow. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 9/21/09. (jg)
November 2, 2012 595 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, Marvell's Motion in Limine N. D11 Re: Precluding CMU from Introducing Evidence of Complaince With 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) 520 is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Ma rvell's motion is granted to the extent that CMU will be barred from presenting any evidence of compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) as to the alleged infringement of the '839 Patent or of any pre-suit attempts at providing actual notice of infringement of the '839 Patent to Marvell. CMU is likewise precluded from introducing evidence of damages as to the '839 Patent prior to its filing of this lawsuit on 3/6/09. Marvell's motion is denied to the extent that it seeks to limit damages as to the alleged infringement of the '180 Patent. The Court further orderes that CMU submit a supplemental opinion on damages consistent with this Opinion by 11/13/12 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/2/12. (jg)
November 2, 2012 596 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Plaintiff CMU's "Motion in Limine No. 1 To Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Marvell's Patent and Alleged 'Complexity of Patents-in-suit'" 494 is denied; Counsel for the parties are hereby ordered to provide a joint limiting instruction on or before 11/9/12 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/2/12. (jg)
November 2, 2012 601 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 485 Defendant Marvell Technology Group's (Marvell) Motion in Limine No. D3 Re: Precluding CMU from Introducing Evidence of Willfulness; Marvell's motion (Docket No. 485) is DENIED without prejudice, with the Co urt to reserve its ruling on the issue of willfulness until the parties have had an opportunity to present their evidence at trial. Counsel for the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to provide joint interrogatories and jury instructions to this end on or before November 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/2/12. (lks)
November 5, 2012 604 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Defendant Marvell's Motion in Limine No. D9 to Exclude Reference to the Entire Price, Profit, and/or Margin Associated with Any One or More Accused Chips 514 is denied; counsel for the parties shall provide joint jury instructions in accord with this Courts opinions on or before November 9, 2012 at 5:00p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/5/12.(lks)
November 6, 2012 607 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Defendant Marvell's Motion in Limine No. D10 To Preclude CMU from Introducing Evidence and Argument Regarding Excess Profits, Premiums, and Operating Profit Premiums 517 is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/6/12. (lks)
November 6, 2012 608 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Marvell's "Motion in Limine No. D12 To Preclude CMU From Introducing Evidence and Argument Regarding Any Compensatory Damages Beyond a Reasonably Royalty" 523 is granted, in part and denied, in part; Marvell's Motion is granted to the extent that CMU is precluded from introducing evidence or argument at trial of the prospective harms to CMU (as set forth in pages 377-79 of Ms. Lawtons expert report) as a result of the alleged failure of Marv ell to enter into a license for the patents-in-suit; and,Marvell's Motion is denied to the extent that it seeks a pretrial order precluding all evidence of the economic circumstances of CMU and the DSSC at the time of the hypothetical negotiation. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/6/2012. (bdk)
November 7, 2012 609 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that CMU's "Motion in Limine No. 4 To Preclude Evidence or Argument Relating to the Intel Subscription Agreement" (Docket No. 500 ) and, "Motion in Limine No. 5 To Preclude Evidence or Argument Relatin g to CMU's 2006 'Highly Speculative Forecast'" (Docket No. 502 ) are DENIED; the parties shall provide a joint limiting instruction on or before November 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. with respect to the proper use of the proposed evidence discussed in this Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/2012. (bdk)
November 7, 2012 610 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Marvell's Motions in Limine No. D5 re: Arguments and Evidence Relating to Copying of CMU Patents or Technology or that Marvell does not Respect Intellectual Property 489 and No. D6 re: Evidence that References Kavcic in a Context Not Specifically Referring to the Asserted CMU Patents, 508 are denied; counsel for the parties shall provide joint jury instructions in accord with this Court's opinions on or before November 9, 2012 at 5:00p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/12. (lks)
November 7, 2012 613 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that CMU's Motion in Limine No. 3 to Preclude Certain Expert Opinion Testimony 498 is DENIED, without prejudice to its ability to raise the same objections at trial. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/12. (lks)
November 7, 2012 614 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 to Preclude Irrelevant or Highly Prejudicial Evidence or Argument, 496 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/12. (lks)
November 29, 2012 672 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER indicating that for the reasons stated more fully within, Marvell's Emergency Motion to Strike CMU's Attempt to Include Noninfringing Sales of Chips that are Never Used in the U.S. in the Damages Case it Intends to Present to the Jury 656 is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/29/12. (lks)
December 15, 2012 713 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that Marvell's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton is granted, in part and denied, in part (details more fully stated in said Memoradum Opinion). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/15/2012. (bdk)
December 17, 2012 719 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Jury selection in this patent infringement action commenced on 11/26/12. Presently before the Court is Marvell's "Motion for Reconsideration re: Courts Order Sustaining CMU's Objections to Disputed Def endant"s Exhibit DX-189 153 ". (Docket No. 660 . CMU opposes this motion and filed a "Preliminary Response in Opposition." (Docket Nos. 664 . The Court heard argument on the topic again and again during trial conferences No vember 26-30, 2012. (Docket Nos. 666 , 669 , 671 , 673 , 674 ). The Court writes now to explain its reasoning in granting reconsideration and admitting DX-189. For the reasons more fully stated in said Order, Marvell's motion 660 was granted on the record during the proceedings on 11/30/12. Docket No. 674 at 36-37). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/17/12.(jg)
December 17, 2012 720 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that jury selection and trial in this patent infringement action commenced on 11/26/12. Presently before the Court is Marvell's Oral Motion to Strike Slide 19 of Plaintiff's Demonstrative and Associate Testimony (Docket No. 674 ". (Docket No. 660 ). CMU opposes this motion and filed a Response in Opposition 675 . The Court heard argument during trial upon the oral motion on 11/30/12 674 . Consistent with the record, and for the following reasons, Marvell's motion is denied. (Docket No. 674 at 36-37). (Details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/17/12. (jg)
February 28, 2013 819 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 800 Defendants' Motion to Compel or to Review in Camera Documents Withheld by CMU that are Relevant to Laches (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/28/13. (jg)
March 29, 2013 838 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Defendants' "Motion for Leave to File Certain Slides and Photographs Used by the Parties During Trial Under Seal" 772 and "Motion to File Under Seal the A ffidavit of Sehat Sutardja in Support of Marvells Motion for Judgment on Laches" 797 are denied. In so holding, the Court also denies Marvell's requests as expressed within Marvell's briefing (Docket No. 772 , 818 ) for leave to seal slides at Docket No. 708 and to redact portions of the transcripts. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/29/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A) (jg)
April 17, 2013 856 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for the reasons stated more fully within, Defendants MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. and MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.'s "Motion for Reconsideration and Stay of this Court's Order Denying Marvell's Motion to Seal" (Docket No. 846 ) is denied. Marvell shall file an un-redacted version of Dr. Sutardja's affidavit and all disputed slides by 4/24/13. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/17/13. (jg)
April 24, 2013 864 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Plaintiff's "Motion to Strike Certain Paragraphs of the Affidavits of Sehat Sutardja and Zining Wu" (Docket No. 830 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/24/13. (jg)
June 26, 2013 884 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 285 791 is denied without prejudice to the right of Plaintiff to renew same after disposition of any appeal by the Federal Circuit and/or further proceeding at the trial level. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/26/13. (jg) Modified on 6/26/2013. (jg, )
August 23, 2013 900 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Defendants' Motion for "Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, New Trial on Non-Damages Issues" 805 is denied in part, to the extent predicated on CMU's alleged misconduct. A forthcoming opinion will address the remaining issues of this motion. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/23/13. (jg)
September 23, 2013 901 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated within, the Court denies Marvell's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, New Trial on Non-Damages Issues 805 , and Marvell's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial And/Or Remittitur With Respect To Damages 807 . The Court grants CMU's Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages 790 , in part, on willfulness, and reserves its ruling on enhanced damages for a forthcoming opinio n. The Court also reserves its rulings on Marvell's Motion for Judgment on Laches 802 , CMU's Motion for Permanent Injunction, Post-Judgment Royalties, and Supplemental Damages 786 , and CMU's Motion for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest 788 , for a memorandum opinion that will be filed in due course. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 9/23/13. (jg)
January 14, 2014 920 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that Marvell's Motion for Judgment on Laches 802 is denied (details more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/14/14. (bdk)
March 31, 2014 933 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that CMU's Motion for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest, (Docket No. 788 ), Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Post-Judgment Royalties, and Supplemental Damages, (Docket No. 786 ), and Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages, (Docket No. 790 ) are granted, in part and denied, in part; CMU's Motion for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest 788 is granted to the extent that CMU seeks post-judgment interest under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 but denied to the extent that CMU seeks prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 284; CMU's Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Post-Judgment Royalties, and Supplemental Damages 786 is granted to the extent that CMU will be awar ded supplemental damages in the amount of $79,550,288.00; denied to the extent that a permanent injunction is sought; and granted, in part, as the Court will order an on-going royalty of $0.50 per sale of Accused Chips by Marvell; and, CMU& #039;s Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages 790 is granted to the extent that the Court will award enhanced damages at a rate of 1.23 multiplied by the jury's award and supplemental damages, for a total enhancement of $287,198,828.60, but denied to the extent that CMU seeks enhanced damages at a higher rate (details more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/31/2014. (bdk)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. et al
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
Represented By: Patrick J. McElhinny
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD.
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
Search Blogs [ Justia BlawgSearch | Google Blogsearch ]
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]