Briggs & Stratton Corporation et al v. Chongqing RATO Power Co., Ltd. et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|July 30, 2015
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDERED, that Defendants Chongqing RATO Power Co., Ltd., RATO North America, and Denver Global Products, Inc.s Motion (Dkt. No. 113) for reconsideration is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that claims 1-6 and 10-12 of the 7 46 Patent are INVALID pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Briggs & Stratton Corporation and Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLCs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on July 30, 2015. (sas)
|September 30, 2014
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDERED, that Defendants Motion (Dkt. No. 82) for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,510,678 is GRANTED. Claims 34, 35, 39, 44, and 45 are INVALID because they lack written description as required by 35 U.S.C . § 112; ORDERED, that Defendants Motions (Dkt. Nos. 83, 95) for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,107,746 and for summary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness are DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Court shall construe the terms of all surviving claims highlighted in the parties claim construction Briefs (Dkt. Nos. 91, 94) consistently with this Memorandum-Decision and Order. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on September 30, 2014. (sas)
|November 7, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER denying 75 Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 11/7/13. (tab)
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 New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?