Magema Technology LLC v. Phillips 66 et al
| 4:2020cv02444 |
| July 28, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Houston Office |
| Patent |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1126 Patent Infringement |
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
295
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Because the parties presented conflicting evidence on the disputed issues from which the jury could reasonably have concluded that Magema did not prove its claims by a preponderance of the evidence, the court will not disturb the jury's verdict by ordering a new trial. After considering the record as a whole, the court is not persuaded that manifest injustice will result from letting the verdict stand. For the reasons stated in § III, Magema's 292 MOTION for New Trial is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(SheilaRAnderson, 4)
|
|
Filing
204
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - For the reasons stated in § II, Defendants 198 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement is DENIED. For the reasons stated in § ; III.B.1, Defendants motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of flash point at the Bayway refinery is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. For the reasons stated in § III.B.2, Defendants motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of damages at the Wood River the Bayway refineries is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. For the reasons stated in § IV.C, Defendants motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. Accordingly, Defendants 158 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringeme nt and Exclusion of Expert Testimony is DENIED. For the reasons stated in § III.C.1, Magem Technology LLCs 163 MOTION to Correct 152 MOTION to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Expert Edward L. Sughrue II is DENIED. For the reasons stated in § III.C.2, Magems 155 MOTION to Strike Certain Opinions of Defendants' Damages Expert Thomas Britven is DENIED as MOOT without prejudice to being reurged at trial. For the reasons state d in § III.C.3, Plaintiffs request to strike the Declaration of Thomas Allen made in Magems 192 Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement and Application of 35 U.S.C. § 295 to Establish a Presumpti on of Infringement is DENIED as MOOT without prejudice to being reurged at trial. For the reasons stated in § IV.D.1(b)(1), the court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment that the Bayway Hydrotreaters product is a Ta ble 2 Compliant HMFO, but that for the reasons stated above in § IV.D.1.(b)(2), whether the Bayway Hydrotreaters feed is a Table 2 Compliant HMFO is a genuine dispute of material fact for trial. For the reasons stated above in § IV.D.2, Pla intiffs motion for application of 35 U.S.C. § 295 is DENIED. Accordingly, Magems 161 SEALED MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement and Application of 35 U.S.C. § 295 to Establish a Presumption of Infringement i s GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. *** Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/3/2023...*** Docket Call set for 3/9/2023 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake *** No motions for limine or other pretrial mo tions will be allowed, including motions for reconsideration. The parties submit a pretrial memorandum not to exceed 25 total pages in which they may include evidentiary issues likely to arise at trial. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)
|
|
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - For the reasons stated, the court adopts the following constructions for the disputed terms: "heavy marine fuel oil" A petroleum product fuel compliant with the ISO 8217:2017 standards for bulk properties of residual marine fuels except for the concentration levels of theEnvironmental Contaminates.; "[having] a maximum [of kinematic viscosity/of density/carbon residue]... between the range of..." No construction necessary; plain and ordinary m eaning applies.; "A low sulfur hydrocarbon fuelcomposition consisting essentially of: a majority by volume of a 100% hydroprocessed high sulfur residual marine fuel oil and a minority by volume of Diluent Materials" No construction necessary; plain and ordinary meaning applies. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4)
|
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 Texas Southern 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
| Search for this case: Magema Technology LLC v. Phillips 66 et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
