Presidio Components Inc v. American Technical Ceramics Corp

Plaintiff: Presidio Components Inc
Defendant: American Technical Ceramics Corp
Case Number: 3:2008cv00335
Filed: February 21, 2008
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: William Q. Hayes
Referring Judge: William McCurine
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
August 12, 2013 473 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 431 Motion Supplemental Damages; granting 432 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying as moot 446 Motion to Strike Rabe Declaration; denying as moot 454 Motion to Strike Newman and Devoe Declarations. Court grants Presidi o's motion for permanent injunction. Court grants Presidio's motion for supplemental damages and awards damages in the amount of $1,508,114. Parties shall submit a stipulated judgment correctly reflecting the prejudgment interest on the supplemental damages awarded. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/12/2013. (jah)
February 17, 2011 413 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 405 Motion for Taxation of Costs. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 2/17/2011. (amh)
October 26, 2010 388 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Defendant's 369 Motion to Alter Judgment Based on Newly Discovered Evidence and Presidio's Failure to Disclose it to ATC; denying 369 Motion for New Trial Regarding Anticipation and Obviousness. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 10/26/2010. (jah)
August 25, 2010 377 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying American Technical Ceramics Corp's 366 Motion to Amend Judgment and 366 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/25/2010. (jah)
August 5, 2010 367 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER. Court finds that $235,172.68 in supplemental damages is adequate to compensate Presidio for ATC's continued infringement between 12/1/2009 and 4/13/2010. Court finds that an ongoing royalty at the rate of 12% of the wholesale p rice for each infringing 545L capacitor is reasonable and adequate to compensate Presidio for ATC's continued infringement after 4/13/20010. Court orders the parties to comply w/ the terms as listed in this Order. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/5/2010.(jah). Modified on 8/5/2010 - Corrected spelling. NEF Regenerated (jah).
April 13, 2010 348 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Presidio's 306 Motion for Permanent Injunction; granting in part and denying in part Presidio's 307 Motion for Post Trial Remedies; denying ATC's 308 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial w/ respect to Presidio's False Marking before 10/24/2008; granting in part and denying in part ATC's 309 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and for a New Trial; granting in part and denying in part ATC's 310 Motion for Entry of ATC's P roposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law w/ respect to Presidio's Fines for False Marking; denying ATC's 311 Motion for Entry of ATC's Proposed Findings of Fact Reqarding Indefiniteness; denying ATC's 312 Motion for Ent ry ATC's Proposed Findings of Fact and Law Regarding Ineforceability of the '356 Patent for Inequitable Conduct. Presidio shall file a supplemental brief by 4/26/2010 on whether Court should allow the parties to negiotiate their own license agreement, or whether Court should impose a specific amount of "ongoing royalty". ATC shall file a response by 5/10/2010. Presidio shall file any reply by 5/17/2010. Court denies Presidio's request for enhanced damages and atty' s fees. Court grants Presidio's request for supplemental damages, and for award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs. Court orders ATC to provide an accounting for any sales of 545L capacitors occurring after 12/1/2009 by 5/10/20 10. Court awards Presidio pre-judgment interest in the amount of simple interest at 7% accruing from the date of the first infringement, which in this case is June 2006. Court awards Presidio post-judgment interest at the currently applicable ra te. Court finds Presidio committed 651,675 separate offenses between 10/24/2008 and April 2009 for the 651,675 BB capacitors shipped during that time and that the appropriate fine should be $0.35 per unit. Total amount of the fine for false marking is $228,086.25. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/13/2010. (jah)
November 30, 2009 276 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying Plaintiff's 254 Ex Parte MOTION to Quash Trial Subpoenas. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 11/30/2009. (jah)
November 13, 2009 252 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting Presidio's 202 MOTION in Limine to Reexamination of the '356 Patent. Court grants Presidio's motion to exclude from trial all evidence relating to the reexamination proceedings of the '356 patent. This does not preclude ATC from arguing to the jury that the nine references discussed by the USPTO in its grant of reexamination were non-cumulative or important to a reasonable examiner. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 11/13/2009. (jah) (jrl).
August 6, 2009 198 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying American Technical Ceramics Corp's 185 Argument Regarding Proposed Additional Admitted and Uncontested Facts. Court directs parties to meet and confer regarding any additional admitted and uncontested facts. Parties shall submit any additional stipulations as appropriate, no later than 2 weeks prior to trial. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 8/6/2009. (jah) (jrl).
May 20, 2009 178 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying in its entirety Defendant American Technical Ceramics Corp's 78 Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply w/ Court's Order and to Produce Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 5/20/2009. (jah) (jrl).
May 14, 2009 176 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying as moot Presidio's 75 Motion for Order to Show Cause Why American Technical Ceramics Should Not Be Held in Contempt. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 5/14/2009. (jah) (jrl).
April 21, 2009 158 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 157 defendant's ex parte Motion to allow media equipment in the courtroom. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 4/21/09. Modified on 4/22/2009 - cc: USM (tkl). (jrl).
March 25, 2009 98 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant American Technical Ceramics' 70 Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Presidio's Expert Witnesses. Dft's Motion is granted w/ respect to Dr. Huebner, and Mr. Killworth, Esq., and Mr. Newman. Dft to bear expense of experts' fees for the preparation for and taking of the depositions. Dft's Motion for Leave to Allow Deposition of Dr. Ewell is denied. Dft may take depositions of Dr. Huebner, Mr. Newman, and Mr. Killworth after expert discovery deadline. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 3/25/2009. (jah)(jrl).

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: Presidio Components Inc v. American Technical Ceramics Corp
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Presidio Components Inc
Represented By: Miles D Grant
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: American Technical Ceramics Corp
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?