Junk Food Custom Arcades, LLC v. Hit Box LLC, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00262-RWS (N.D. Ga., Apr. 11, 2023) Judge Richard Story recently entered claim construction for two patents directed at gaming controllers, siding with the Defendant’s position for four of the five disputed terms. The dispute involves Hit […]
Epic Tech, LLC v. Pen-Tech Associates, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02428-VMC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 18, 2023) Judge Victoria Calvert overruled the Defendant’s objection to a claim construction order in favor of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation which found the Plaintiff’s gaming system patent was not invalid as […]
Johnson Controls Technology Company et al v. Price Industries Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03692-LMM (N.D. Ga., Dec. 16, 2022) A patent case in the Northern District of Georgia court has been resolved after two years and 103 days, shortly after the Claim Construction Order was entered […]
Plaintiff Microwave Vision, SA (“Microwave Vision”), owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,443,170 (the “‘170 Patent”), brought an action for patent infringement along with MVG Industries, SAS, and MVG, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against ESCO Technologies Inc. and ETS-Lindgren Inc. (collectively the “Defendants”). The ‘170 Patent covers systems used “to […]
Fig. 7B of ‘873 patent On April 4, 2014, Judge Thrash issued an opinion and order construing a number of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,725,564 (“the ‘564 patent”), 5,987,359 (“the ‘359 patent”), 6,104,958 (“the ‘958 patent”), and 7,280,873 (“the ‘873 patent”). The four related patents, owned by […]
Sumner C. Rosenberg issued a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation construing terms at issue in three patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 5,927,341 (“the ‘341 patent”), 6,337,114 (“the ‘114 patent”), and 6,899,832 (“the ‘832 patent”) — asserted by Insituform Technologies, Inc., and INA Acquisition Corp. (collectively “ITI”) against AMerik Supplies, Inc., and Erik Nielsen who […]
Judge Steve C. Jones entered a Markman Order (full order here) in the dispute between Synchrome Technology Inc. (“Synchrome”), as plaintiff, and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (“Toshiba”), and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“Samsung”), as defendants. The Court construed the disputed terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,304,925 (the ‘925 patent), […]
Judge Batten examined the parties’ contentions in light of controlling federal law and construed patent claims as plaintiff Kason Industries, Inc. (“Kason”) contended, rejecting reliance by defendant Component Hardware Group, Inc. (“Component”) on indefiniteness and rejecting its efforts to restrict the term “projection” to mean only a “rib.” […]
Motions to strike testimony of Defendant’s Expert and Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert were denied by Judge Jones in this patent dispute over a interface technologies. Two paragraphs comprising 373 words described the intention of Defendants’ expert to provide testimony “about the history, evolution, development, and technical operation of … […]
The Northern District of Georgia is well-known for its heavy reliance on special masters in patent cases. A recent study indicated that, though it accounts for just 4% of patent cases filed nationwide, the Northern District accounts for over 11% of the patent cases in which a special […]
Georgia IP Litigation 