Metso Minerals, INC. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Limited et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Metso Minerals, INC. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Limited et al

Metso Minerals, INC. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Limited et al

Case Number:	2:2006cv01446
Filed:	March 29, 2006
Court:	U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	E. Thomas Boyle
Presiding Judge:	Arthur D. Spatt
Nature of Suit:	Patent
Cause of Action:	35 U.S.C. § 145 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
January 29, 2014	Filing 765 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 759 Motion to Amend; For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Powerscreens motion to amend or correct the December 5, 2013 judgment granting Powerscreens motion for reimburse ment of the bond premium in the amount of $400,000. The motion is denied as untimely to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The motion is granted to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Th e Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the December 5, 2013 judgment to enter judgment in favor of Terex Corporation in an additional amount of $100,000, for a total of $500,000.So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/29/2014. (Coleman, Laurie)
December 8, 2011	Filing 688 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion to enhance the damages award pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 is GRANTED, but only to the extent that any damages award shall be doubled; and it is further ORDERED tha t the Plaintiffs motion for pre- and post-judgment interest is GRANTED. With regard to pre-judgment interest, it shall be calculated according to the formula prescribed in Part III of this Order. After the Defendants provide the Plaintiff with a supp lemental accounting, the parties shall meet and confer to arrive at a joint calculation according to this formula. Within 10 days of the date the supplemental accounting is provided, the parties shall provide to the Court a joint letter setting forth the correct calculation and amount of prejudgment interest to the date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion for a supplemental accounting and damages award for previously unaccounted-for infringing sales pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284is GRANTED. The Defendants shall provide a full accounting of all infringing sales from the period beginning October 1, 2007 running through the effective date of the permanent injunction, the July 25, 2011 Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall file a bill of costs with this Court within 10 days of the date of this judgment. The Defendants are directed to file any objections within 5 days of the Plaintiffs submission. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/9/2011. (Coleman, Laurie)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 29, 2014

Filing 765 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 759 Motion to Amend; For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Powerscreens motion to amend or correct the December 5, 2013 judgment granting Powerscreens motion for reimburse ment of the bond premium in the amount of $400,000. The motion is denied as untimely to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The motion is granted to the extent Powerscreen seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Th e Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the December 5, 2013 judgment to enter judgment in favor of Terex Corporation in an additional amount of $100,000, for a total of $500,000.So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/29/2014. (Coleman, Laurie)

December 8, 2011

Filing 688 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion to enhance the damages award pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 is GRANTED, but only to the extent that any damages award shall be doubled; and it is further ORDERED tha t the Plaintiffs motion for pre- and post-judgment interest is GRANTED. With regard to pre-judgment interest, it shall be calculated according to the formula prescribed in Part III of this Order. After the Defendants provide the Plaintiff with a supp lemental accounting, the parties shall meet and confer to arrive at a joint calculation according to this formula. Within 10 days of the date the supplemental accounting is provided, the parties shall provide to the Court a joint letter setting forth the correct calculation and amount of prejudgment interest to the date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion for a supplemental accounting and damages award for previously unaccounted-for infringing sales pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284is GRANTED. The Defendants shall provide a full accounting of all infringing sales from the period beginning October 1, 2007 running through the effective date of the permanent injunction, the July 25, 2011 Order; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall file a bill of costs with this Court within 10 days of the date of this judgment. The Defendants are directed to file any objections within 5 days of the Plaintiffs submission. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/9/2011. (Coleman, Laurie)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Metso Minerals, INC. v. Powerscreen International Distribution Limited 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.

Why Is My Information Online?