American Technical Ceramics Corp. et al v. Presidio Components, Inc.
| AVX Corporation and American Technical Ceramics Corp. |
| Presidio Components, Inc. |
| 2:2014cv06544 |
| November 6, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Kiyo A. Matsumoto |
| A. Kathleen Tomlinson |
| Patent |
| 35 U.S.C. ยง 271 Patent Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
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
238
ORDER denying 223 Motion for Attorneys' Fees. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, the court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this was an exceptional case, either with respect to the substantive strength of Presidio's litigating position, or its conduct throughout the case. Accordingly, there is no need to determine the amount of fees justified. Defendant is advised that the court may revisit the issue of fee-shifting should Defendant persist in certain questionable conduct and practices, of the nature discussed herein, both leading up and during the new trial. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/23/2020. (Brasky, Michael)
|
|
Filing
214
ORDER denying 206 Motion to Vacate. For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum the Court finds: (1) that the claim term "negligibly over a top surface" is not invalid for indefiniteness; and (2) that plaintiffs did not waive their right to sue under the '791 Patent. The parties shall file a proposed judgment within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File their post-trial briefs after the Court enters judgment is granted. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/16/2019. (Brasky, Michael)
|
|
Filing
181
ORDER: For the reasons discussed in the attached Memorandum & Order, the parties' respective 164 169 motions in limine are granted in part and denied in part. Additionally, the court rules herein on the parties' remaining objections as detailed in 174 175 177 the parties' recent submissions. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 5/31/2019. (Mazzurco, Vincent)
|
|
Filing
142
ORDER: For the reasons discussed in the attached Order, the court finds that Presidio is estopped from raising invalidity grounds that it did not include in its IPR petition to the PTO challenging the '547 Patent and, thus, it may not supplement its invalidity contentions or serve a new expert invalidity report. No later than February 6, 2019 the parties shall submit a joint letter informing the court of their availability for trial in August 2019. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 1/30/2019. (Mazzurco, Vincent)
|
|
Filing
136
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the disputed claim term "terminations," as it is recited in the '547 Patent, shall be construed as "conductive structures arranged externally o n the device body." The parties are respectfully directed to confer and, within fourteen (14) days, submit a joint letter to the court stating how they intend to proceed in this action, including whether the parties seek to engage in any further settlement discussions, or whether the court should set a trial date. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/2/2018. (Flores, Diego)
|
|
Filing
126
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 94 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 97 Motion for Summary Judgment. As set forth in the attached memorandum and order, defendant's motion for summary jud gment is GRANTED as to (1) plaintiffs' claim for damages for pre-suit infringement of the '547 Patent from 1999 onward and (2) plaintiff's claim for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 solely with respect to the '547 Patent. Defen dant's motion for summary judgment is denied in all other respects, although the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's claim for infringement of the '547 Patent is denied without prejudice pending fur ther claim construction of the term "terminations."Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to (1) the defense of laches, without prejudice to defendant's ability to argue laches in opposing an ongoing royalty or an injunction should this action reach the remedial stage; (2) the defense of equitable estoppel; and (3) the defense of waiver solely with respect to the '547 Patent. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to the defense of waiver with respect to the '791 Patent. As further set forth in the attached memorandum and order, the parties are directed to confer and, within seven (7) days of entry of this order, submit a joint plan for claim construction proce edings with respect to the word "terminations" as recited in the '547 Patent, including a briefing scheudle and a statement as to whether a hearing is necessary. Because of the importance of further claim construction with respect to the word "terminations" in crystallizing the issues that may remain for trial, the court will not direct the parties to commence trial preparations at this time. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/27/2018. (Flores, Diego)
|
|
Filing
79
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The disputed claims in the 547 Patent and 791 Patent are construed as detailed in the attached Memorandum & Order. The parties shall proceed in this litigation in a manner consistent with this opinion and jointly advise the court by letter filed on ECF no later than November 14, 2016 how they intend to do so. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 11/7/2016. (Newman, Alanna)
|
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 New York Eastern 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.
