Source: https://dmassiplitigation.com/category/casper/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:29:34+00:00

Document:
Judge Casper granted Defendants’ renewed motion for attorneys fees, finding the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which allows for the award of fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases. She had previously granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all issues. Judge Casper, applying the Supreme Court’s 2014 Octane Fitness guidance in the analysis of whether a patent case is “exceptional” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, found that sanctions had already been imposed on the Plaintiff for their litigation conduct, repeatedly failed to meet court-imposed deadlines, submitted filings that failed to provide sufficient support for their positions, and otherwise engaging in unreasonable conduct. Moreover, she determined that the plaintiffs’ substantive positions following the completion of discovery were weak and that they failed to produce any evidence of damages. Judge Casper found that Defendants need to be compensated for discovery-related motion practice and for prolonging litigation after discovery through summary judgment. She ordered Defendant to submit its request for fees from the denial of their motion to dismiss forward, excluding fees that had already been awarded through discovery sanctions.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on October 25, 2018 Categories Attorneys' Fees, Casper, Sanctions, Trademark1 Comment on Xiao Wei Yang Catering Linkage In Inner Mongolia Co., Ltd. et al. v. Inner Mongolia Xiao Wei Yang USA, Inc. et al. (15-cv-10114).
TheBrain Technologies LP v. OriginLab Corporation (18-cv-11169).
In a case before Judge Casper, TheBrain Technologies accuses OriginLab of willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,166,736. The patent, which issued on December 26, 2000, claims a graphical user interface that allows for multiple windows and increased ease in accessing multiple windows on a single display (which was apparently not so common when the priority application was filed in 1997). OriginLab sells software applications for scientific graphing and data analysis that are said to read on claims 1-4 of the ‘736 patent, and are accused of direct, contributory, and induced infringement. The allegations of willfulness are based on correspondence to OriginLab in October 2015 laying out which products infringed and providing claim charts in support. While the complaint seeks injunctive relief, the patent will expire on August 21, 2018 , leaving virtually no likelihood that the court will reach a decision on an injunction prior to expiration.
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on June 6, 2018 June 6, 2018 Categories Casper, Complaint, PatentLeave a comment on TheBrain Technologies LP v. OriginLab Corporation (18-cv-11169).
Author dmassiplitigationPosted on March 20, 2018 Categories Casper, Complaint, Patent, TalwaniLeave a comment on Greater Boston Authentication Solutions, LLC v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (18-cv-10513) and Greater Boston Authentication Solutions, LLC v. Keysight Technologies (18-cv-10514).

References: § 1117
 § 285
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.