Carl Zeiss Vision International GMBH et al v. Signet Armorlite Inc

Plaintiff: Carl Zeiss Vision Inc and Carl Zeiss Vision International GMBH
Defendant: Signet Armorlite Inc
Case Number: 3:2007cv00894
Filed: May 17, 2007
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: Patent Office
County: XX Outside US
Referring Judge: Louisa S Porter
Presiding Judge: Dana M. Sabraw
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
December 19, 2011 1296 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment of no inequitable conduct and (2) Denying 1253 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of inequitable conduct. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 12/19/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)
September 14, 2011 1245 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER on Post-Trial Motions re 1170 , 1171 , 1172 , 1174 , 1179 , 1180 , 1181 , 1182 , 1183 , 1184 , 1185 , 1186 , 1187 , 1188 , 1211 . The Court grants Zeiss's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law that claim 7 is not i nvalid as not enabled. The remainder of the motions for judgment as a matter of law are denied. There remains the issue of whether the jury's findings on anticipation and obviousness are irreconcilably inconsistent. The Court finds they are, thu s, grants Signet's motion for a new trial on only those issues. The Court denies Zeiss' ex parte motion to strike, 1211 , and grants Signet's request for clarification and corrections of the June 2, 2011 Interim Judgment. On the issue of inequitable conduct, the parties shall file cross motions for summary judgment on or before October 14, 2011. Oppositions shall be filed on or before October 28, 2011, and reply briefs shall be filed on or before November 10, 2011. Those motions shall be heard on November 22, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. (Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/6/2012 10:30 AM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Dana M. Sabraw. Jury Trial set for 2/6/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Dana M. Sabraw.) Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 9/14/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)
June 2, 2011 1169 Opinion or Order of the Court INTERIM JUDGMENT. The parties shall file their opening brief in support of their respective post-trial motions on or before June 30, 2011. Opposition briefs shall be filed on or before July 14, 2011, and reply briefs shall be filed on or before July 21, 2011. The motions shall be heard on July 29, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 6/2/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)
November 8, 2010 932 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 892 Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on claim for California common law unfair competition. Specifically, the Court grants the motion as to the statements of Ms. Vescio and the statements about the ownership of the '713 patent, but denies the motion as to the statements to Ms. Suba of Littlefield Eye Associates. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 11/8/10. (lao)
October 8, 2010 931 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Willful Infringement of the '793 Patent re 889 . Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 10/8/2010.(jer)
September 24, 2010 930 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER (1) Denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement of claim 1, 5 and 6 of the '713 Patent, (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of law of literal infringement of claim 6 of the '713 patent and (3) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment as a matter of law of literal infringement of claim 1 of the '713 patent re 887 , 890 , 894 . Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 9/24/10. (lao)
September 13, 2010 926 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 884 Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law that the Claims of the '713 Patent are not Invalid Due to Improper Inventorship. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 9/13/2010. (knh)
May 10, 2010 810 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER on Motions in Limine: Granting in part and denying in part 704 Motion in Limine No. 1 Regarding Inadmissibility of Various European Opposition Proceedings; Denying 711 Motion in Limine to Clear the Courtroom During Testimony Regarding Confi dential Financial Matters; granting 712 Motion in Limine to Exclude Witnesses From the Courtroom During Trial Prior to Their Testimony; denying 713 Motion in Limine to Preclude Zeiss From Contesting the Substantive Involvement of Persons Listed o n Privilege Log; denying 714 Motion in Limine to Prevent Zeiss From Asserting a Date of Invention of the '713 Patent That is Earlier than January 16, 1997; denying 715 Motion in Limine that Essilor Not be Joined as a Party; denying 716 Mot ion in Limine to Exclude Matters Not in Controversy; denying 717 Motion in Limine No. 2 to Limit Opinion Testimony and Restrict Evidence Regarding Invalidity to That Set Forth in Defendants' Final Invalidity Contentions; denying 719 Motion i n Limine No. 4 to Preclude Evidence Concerning the Seiko-Zeiss License as Irrelevant; denying 720 Motion in Limine in Limine No. 5 Regarding Micro Optics Documents and Statements; granting in part and denying in part 721 Motion in Limine No. 6 Re garding Use of Arbitration Documents in Damages Case; granting in part and denying in part 722 Motion in Limine No. 7 to Preclude Evidence Concerning the Court's Orders on Standing and Discovery; denying 724 Motion in Limine No. 10 to Preclude Testimony Regarding the Mukaiyama '470 Patent as Irrelevant; denying 725 Motion in Limine No. 11 Regarding Carl Zeiss Vision GMBH, Carl Zeiss Stiftung and Carl Zeiss AG. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 5/10/10. (lao)
April 26, 2010 778 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 649 Signet's Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs. The Court Grants Signet's Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Zeiss shall pay to Signet $236,815.50 in reasonable attorneys' fees, and $7,354.32 in costs, on or before May 28, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 4/26/10. (lao)
April 22, 2010 741 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 623 Motion to Compel production of documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 4/22/10. (lao)
April 21, 2010 728 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 665 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court hereby amends its March 1, 2010 Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's R&R to exclude the finding that Ms. Roberts filed a false declaration. That finding has been rebutted by the newly discovered evidence presented in conjunction with this motion, and is no longer part of the record of this Court. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 4/21/10. (lao)
March 29, 2010 657 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 470 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claims 1, 5, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 as anticipated and/or as obvious. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 3/29/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)
March 1, 2010 585 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 405 Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.11. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 3/1/10. (lao) (jrl).
February 16, 2010 520 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Overruling Defendant's Objections to December 1, 2009 Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 2/16/10.(lao)(jrl).
February 12, 2010 519 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER overruling Plaintiffs' Objections to December 1, 2009 Discovery Order. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 2/12/10.(lao) (jrl).
January 21, 2010 449 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Defendant's Motions for Sanctions be Granted, in part, and Denied in part re 351 , 374 , 376 , 379 . With respect to the Motion for Sanctions 351 , it is Recommended that (1) Zeiss be precluded from relying on th e financial data produced at the very end of discovery; (2) Zeiss be precluded from deriving any damages from the four products identified for the first time on August 28, 2009; and (3) monetary sanctions be awarded for costs and attorneys' fees , in accordance with proof, associated with the filing of the motion. With respect to the Motion for Sanctions Third Party Communications 374 , it is Recommended that monetary sanctions be awarded for costs and attorneys' fees, in accordance wi th proof, associated with the filing of the motion and Signet's efforts to pursue its own discovery with Co-Op, VSP, and Satisloh. With respect to the Motion for Sanctions Spoliation of Evidence 376 , it is Recommended that monetary sanctions b e awarded for costs and attorneys' fees, in accordance with proof, associated with the filing of the motion and the deposition of Mr. Klaus Gnatzig. With respect to the Motion for Sanctions Ongoing Misconduct 379 , it is Recommended that (1) Ze iss be precluded from relying on the money transfers for any purpose in this case; and (2) monetary sanctions be awarded for costs and attorneys' fees, in accordance with proof, associated with the filing of the motion. (Objections to R&R due by 2/5/2010. Reply due by 2/12/2010.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 1/21/10.(lao) (jrl).
December 1, 2009 408 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 403 Joint Discovery Motion. Zeiss shall produce by 12/16/2009, both 1.) the verified pleading as described in Section III, and 2.) the documents received by employees of Micro Optics. No sanctions shall issue as a result of this dispute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 12/1/2009. (jah)

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 California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Carl Zeiss Vision International GMBH et al v. Signet Armorlite Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Carl Zeiss Vision Inc
Represented By: Karineh Khachatourian
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 ]
Plaintiff: Carl Zeiss Vision International GMBH
Represented By: Karineh Khachatourian
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: Signet Armorlite Inc
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 ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?