Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Plaintiff: Trustees of Boston University
Defendant: Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Everlight Americas, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2012cv11935
Filed: October 17, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Suffolk
Presiding Judge: F. Dennis Saylor
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. ยง 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
March 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 1914 Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 1899 ) is DENIED. Defendants' request for attorney fees (Docket No. 1909 ) is DENIED.SO ORDERED. (Lara, Miguel)
December 16, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 1897 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. See Order for Full Text. (Lara, Miguel)
July 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 1890 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered.The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to affirm the jury verdict or, in the alternative, to modify the claim construction order or amend its complaint (Dkt. No. 1872 ), ALLOWS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to rescind the Court's award of attorney fees (Dkt. No. 1859 ), ALLOWS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for attorney's fees (Dkt. No. 1860 ), and ALLOWS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for disallowance of costs (Dkt. No. 1850 )SO ORDERED.(Lara, Miguel)
August 9, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 1786 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered. The Court ALLOWS BU's motion to amend its July 22, 2016 order to permit an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Docket No. 1782 ). The Court certifies the following cont rolling question of law for interlocutory review: When a trial court applies the maximum recovery rule, is the court limited to considering only the particular form of reasonable royalty identified by the jury on the verdict form (lump sum) or should it consider a running royalties calculation based on the evidence in the record? (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
July 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 1770 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered finding as moot (1723) Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part (1732) Motion for Attorney Fees; finding as moot (1742) Motion to Strike in case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-11935-PBS, 1:12-cv-12326-PBS, 1:12-cv-12330-PBS (adminn, )
April 26, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 1718 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The Court finds in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of laches. The plaintiffs Motion for Prejudgment and Postjudgment Interest (Docket No. 1604 ) is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with the above memorandum. Pursuant to the jury verdict, Defendant Epistar is ORDERED to pay BU a sum of $9,300,000 in reasonable royalty damages, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest. Defendant Everlight is ORDER ED to pay BU a sum of $4,000,000 in reasonable royalty damages, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest. Defendant Lite-On is ORDERED to pay BU $365,000, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest.The plaintiff shall submit a proposed form of judgment conforming to this order by May 3, 2016 (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
October 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 1507 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered. The defendant's motion to strike the expert report of Russell W. Mangum, III (Docket No. 1420 ) is ALLOWED in part, DENIED in part, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
October 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 1485 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered.The defendants' Daubert Motion/Motion in Limine (Docket No. 1407 ) is DENIED. See Order for Details. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
October 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 1476 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered re 1364 MOTION for Order. After hearing and a review of the submissions, I will structure trial as detailed below: 1. The actions against all three defendants will be tried beginning on November 2, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. The jury will hear evidence as to infringement, validity, and certain theories of damages. However, the court will not consider the design win theory of damages at this trial. BU may present its direct infringement theory of damages, and its induced infringement theory insofar as these theories do not implicate design win evidence. Resolution of the design win issue will be deferred. If BU prevails on infringement and validity, the Court will conduct a Daubert hearing as to design win, and, if the theory survives, impanel a second jury. 2. Each side will have sixteen (16) hours to present its case, including opening statements and closing arguments. Counsel shall appear in court at 8:30 each morning when the court will hear objections to the days exhibits. The parties sh all exchange exhibits two business days before a witness is scheduled to take the stand at trial. Furthermore, counsel shall confer to minimize any objections to deposition transcript testimony. Counsel shall present all unresolved objections to the Court three business days before the evidence is set to be introduced at trial. 3. Counsel shall submit proposed verdict forms by October 28, 2015. See Complete Order for Details. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
October 14, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 1468 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, Trustees of Boston University's motion 1394 is ALLOWED and Epistar Corporation's DENIED re 1406 . (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
June 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 1252 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered. After a review of the record and the case law, I deny the motion for summary judgment on the ground that the patent is invalid for indefiniteness. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Docket No. 878 is DENIED. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
May 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 1245 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The Court SUSTAINS BU's objection Docket No. 843 and ALLOWS IN PART BUs motion to compel 717 . Epistar is hereby compelled to produce all attorney-client communications relating to thenon-infringement opinion provided by Finnegan in 2007. In all other respects, BU's objection to the magistrate judges order is OVERRULED.(Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
May 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 1231 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered. I DENY both MOTIONS for Summary Judgment 1105 and 1109 in case 1:12-cv-11935-PBS. Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-11935-PBS et al.(Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
May 20, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 511 Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. See Order for details.Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-11935-PBS, 1:12-cv-12326-PBS, 1:12-cv-12330-PBS, 1:13-cv-11105-PBS(Folan, Karen)
November 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 200 Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal: ORDER entered granting in part and denying in part 148 Motion for Protective Order. (York, Steve)
July 11, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 104 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The defendants' 65 motion to stay litigation pending inter partes review is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal after the PTO makes its threshold determination.(Cicolini, Pietro)
June 12, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 81 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The defendants' 46 motion to strike the plaintiff's preliminary infringement contentions and stay discovery is DENIED.(Cicolini, Pietro)
May 28, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 57 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. The Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over Everlight and the defendant's 16 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is therefore DENIED.(Cicolini, Pietro)
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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Trustees of Boston University
Represented By: Ilan N. Barzilay
Represented By: Alfonso Garcia Chan
Represented By: Eve Henson
Represented By: Andrew M. Howard
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Everlight Americas, 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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?