Cyber Acoustics, LLC v. Belkin International, Inc.
||Cyber Acoustics, LLC
||Belkin International, Inc.
||July 9, 2013
||Oregon District Court
||Portland (3) Office
||Michael H. Simon
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||35:271 Patent Infringement
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|December 27, 2013
Opinion and Order - Because Belkin's Third Counterclaim and Third Affirmative Defense satisfy the level of specificity and sufficiently allege materiality and intent required by Rule 9(b) and applicable case law, Cyber's Motion to Dismiss or Strike the Inequitable Conduct Assertions in Belkin's First Amended Answer and Amended Counterclaims 25 is DENIED. Signed on 12/27/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|March 24, 2014
Opinion and Order - The disputed terms "top" and "bottom" are given their plain and ordinary meanings. The Court construes the disputed term "flap" to mean "a flat piece of material that has at least one side attac hed to the portfolio." The Court construes the disputed term "to engage said flap" to mean "to physically connect the top with the flap." The phrase "X-shaped configuration" in Claim 1(c) is not invalid as indefinit e or in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Finally, the Court declines to address Belkin's written description challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) at this time and will wait to see whether that issue is raised either pretrial in a motion for summary judgment or at trial in a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Signed on 3/24/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) Modified on 3/24/2014 (mja).
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 Oregon 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.