§Why CasetextPricing

Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. BlackBerry Limited et al

MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42

12 Cited authorities

  1. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. Seb S. A.

    563 U.S. 754 (2011)   Cited 803 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of deliberate ignorance requires the defendant to "take deliberate actions to avoid learning of [wrongdoing]."

  2. In re Seagate Technology

    497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 792 times   86 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "advice of counsel" defense to willful infringement does not waive the attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel partly because post-filing conduct is usually not relevant to a finding of willful infringement

  3. Gardco Mfg., Inc. v. Herst Lighting Co.

    820 F.2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 1987)   Cited 122 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " separation [of issues in patent litigation] is precisely the type contemplated by Rule 42(b) and does not run afoul of the Seventh Amendment."

  4. Gustafson, Inc. v. Intersystems Indus. Prod

    897 F.2d 508 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 102 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "party cannot be found to have `willfully' infringed a patent of which the party had no knowledge"

  5. Bates v. United Parcel Service

    204 F.R.D. 440 (N.D. Cal. 2001)   Cited 61 times
    Certifying class of plaintiffs with hearing disabilities

  6. Smith v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co.

    538 F. Supp. 977 (D. Del. 1982)   Cited 52 times
    Finding "that one trial of both issues [i.e., liability and damages] would tend to clutter the record and to confuse the jury."

  7. Laboratory Skin Care, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc.

    757 F. Supp. 2d 431 (D. Del. 2010)   Cited 8 times
    Excluding certain evidence relied upon in defendants' reply brief that should have been included in their opening brief in violation of D. Del. LR 7.1.3(c)

  8. DUTCH BR. OF STREAMSERVE DEVEL. AB v. EXSTREAM SOFTWARE

    Civ. No. 08-343-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2009)   Cited 3 times
    Denying waiver where testimony goes to existence, not substance, of communication

  9. Mike's Train House, Inc. v. Broadway Limited Imports, LLC

    CIVIL NO. JKB-09-2657 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2011)

    CIVIL NO. JKB-09-2657. March 17, 2011 MEMORANDUM JAMES BREDAR, Magistrate Judge Mike's Train House, Inc. ("Plaintiff") brought this suit against Broadway Limited Imports, LLC ("BLI") for alleged infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,457,681 ("'681") and 6,655,640 ("'640"), and against Robert Grubba ("Grubba") for allegedly inducing BLI's infringement. (Am. Compl. 16-18, ECF No. 95). BLI now moves to bifurcate this case into separate trials for liability and damages, to stay discovery as to damages

  10. Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    99 Civ. 8926, 99 Civ. 9887, M-21-81 (BSJ), MDL Docket No. 1291 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 8, 2010)

    01 Civ. 9351, M-21-81 (BSJ), MDL Docket No. 1291. June 8, 2010 Opinion Order BARBARA JONES, District Judge On December 12, 2008, Apotex Corp., Apotex, Inc. and Torpharm, Inc. ("Apotex") filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) as to AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hässle, KBI-E, Inc., KBI, Inc., and AstraZeneca, LP's ("Astra") Claims for Willful Infringement and Increased Damages. For the reasons set forth below, Apotex's motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND

  11. Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 42   Cited 9,244 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."