Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc.
| Shure Incorporated |
| ClearOne, Inc. |
| Biamp Systems Corporation, QSC Audio Products, LLC and Shure Incorporated |
| ClearOne, Inc. |
| 1:2017cv03078 |
| April 24, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Edmond E. Chang |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| Both |
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
912
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, ClearOne's motion 707 to hold Shure in contempt is granted in part and entered and continued in part to determine the scope of the vio lation and potential relief. ClearOne's request for leave to conduct additional discovery is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Shure has violated the preliminary injunction order and is found in contempt because it designed the M XA910-A in such a way that allows it to be easily installed flush in most ceiling grids. Shure shall no longer manufacture, market, or sell the MXA910-A (to the extent that it still has any MXA910-As to sell). ClearOne is entitled to take discovery, including from integrators and end users, as detailed in the Opinion, on: (1) how many MXA910-As have been installed in the enjoined flush configuration; (2) how many MXA910-60CMs have been installed in the enjoined flush configuration, and the exten t of Shure's knowledge of those installations; and (3) what, if anything, Shure did with the MXA910 inventory, including trying to sell it, in the days immediately after the preliminary injunction order was issued but before it took effect, and whether any of those units were ultimately flush-mounted after the Order took effect. For now, the request to conduct discovery related to the MXA910-US is denied. The parties shall confer on a proposed discovery schedule and file a proposed schedule on or before 09/14/2020. After discovery is completed, the parties will have a chance to supplement the contempt briefing with any new evidence obtained during this next round of discovery. To track the discovery schedule only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a status hearing is set for 09/25/2020, at 8:30 a.m. (with the other tracking status of 10/30/2020 remains on the books). Emailed notice (mw, )
|
|
Filing
613
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 8/25/2019: This Opinion explains the remaining claim-construction decisions.Emailed notice(Chang, Edmond)
|
|
Filing
551
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. This is the public redacted version of the opinion. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, ClearOne's motion 369 for preliminary injunction on the '806 patent is GRANTE D. The parties shall immediately confer and then litigate the bond-security issue as described in the Opinion. Also, by 08/26/2019, the parties shall file a Joint Position Paper on Redactions. The position paper shall set forth the parties' posi tions, and the specific reasons for them (including supporting evidence if needed), on each of the redactions in the Opinion (by page and line number). The Court urges the parties to bear in mind the strict standard for sealing information, Baxter Int'l v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 546-47 (7th Cir. 2002), and to avoid proposing overbroad sealing. Emailed notice(slb, )
|
|
Filing
279
(PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION) MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. (This is the initial public redacted version of the Opinion.) For the reasons stated in the Opinion, ClearOne's motion [90, 145] for preliminary in junction is denied. As detailed in the Opinion, there is a substantial question on the validity of the '186 patent. But ClearOne did otherwise prove infringement on Claim 7, joint infringement with Biamp and QSC, and irreparable harm and inadequ ate remedy at law. If not for the substantial question on validity, the preliminary injunction would have issued. The Court urges the parties to reassess their settlement positions as promptly as possible, to avoid the further risk and delay of litig ation. Assuring certainty of outcome with a settlement will allow both sides to move forward; otherwise, the only certainty from further litigation will be fees, expenses, and distraction of each side's executives and engineers. Of course, it ul timately is up to the parties whether they wish to settle. To allow time to assess the situation (as well as address the propriety of sealing), the status hearing of 03/19/2018 is reset to 04/03/2018 at 1:30 p.m. In the meantime, the Court adopts the parties' proposed initial schedule on the '806 patent (Local Patent Rules 2.1-2.5), R. 277 at 3, so the parties shall follow those agreed deadlines. The parties shall file another joint status report proposing the remainder of the litigati on schedule on 03/28/2018. The prior motion 63 filed by Shure to dismiss the first amended counterclaim is denied, as explained on page 2 at n.3. An initial public redacted version of the Opinion will be entered (some of the citations in the Opinio n are to sealed evidence but cannot possibly be properly sealed, so redactions were not applied to those sentences). The parties must file a joint position paper on sealing on 03/21/2018, so that another public version of the Opinion, with as few redactions as possible (and perhaps zero), may be entered.Emailed notice(slb, )
|
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 Illinois Northern 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.
