Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Planar Systems, Inc.
| Mass Engineered Design, Inc. |
| Planar Systems, Inc. |
| Mass Engineered Design, Inc. |
| Andrew W. Spangler, Jing Hong Cherng, Daniel H Fingerman and Kathryn G Spelman |
| Mount Spelman P.C. |
| Planar Systems, Inc. |
| William Henry Stewart |
| 3:2016cv01510 |
| July 26, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Michael H. Simon |
| Patent |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1126 Patent Infringement |
| Both |
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
460
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for an Exceptional Case Finding and Attorney's Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (ECF 441), Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF 443), and Defendant's Motion to Amend the Judgment and for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59 (ECF 444) are all DENIED. Signed on 11/8/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (jp)
|
|
Filing
423
Opinion and Order - Planar's motion to strike (ECF 419 ) is DENIED. The Court sets the post-verdict ongoing royalty at 3.5 percent of sales of infringing products. Planar is ordered to submit to Mass on a quarterly basis sufficient supporting financial documentation to calculate the ongoing royalty. Mass also is awarded royalties at the rate of 2.88 percent for sales of infringing products from April 1, 2018 through May 8, 2018. The parties are directed to confer in good faith and file within two weeks from the date of this Order either a stipulated proposed judgment or their respective proposed judgments. Signed on 11/19/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
413
Opinion and Order - Plaintiff's motion to set a prejudgment interest rate (ECF 404 ) is GRANTED IN PART. The prejudgment interest rate is set at prime, compounded quarterly. The parties are directed to confer in good faith about this calculatio n and to file within two weeks from the date of this Opinion and Order either a stipulated calculation based on the Court's ruling (with both parties preserving their objections to the Court's ruling) or their respective calculations for th e appropriate amount of prejudgment interest. The Court also finds that the jury awarded damages only for past infringement and that Plaintiff is entitled to an ongoing reasonable royalty for any future infringement. The parties are directed to attem pt to negotiate a license in good faith. If, however, their negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties shall file simultaneous opening briefs regarding the amount of a reasonable ongoing royalty on September 28, 2018, and simultaneous response briefs on October 12, 2018. Signed on 9/11/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
400
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds in favor of Plaintiff, Mass Engineered Design, Inc. Signed on 7/20/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
162
Opinion and Order - Planar's motions for summary judgment (ECF 85 , 86 , 87 , 96 , 100 ) are DENIED. Planar's motion (ECF 102 ) under Daubert to exclude portions of the expert report and testimony of J.E. Akin, Ph.D., P.E. is DENIED. Planar's motion (ECF 98 ) under Daubert to exclude the expert report and testimony of Peter Heuser, J.D., is GRANTED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART. Mass's motion (ECF 101 ) under Daubert to exclude portions of the expert report and testimony of Raymond Yee, Ph.D., P.E. is DENIED. Signed on 6/19/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
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
- 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.
