Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 09 C 2945, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2012) (Hart, Sen. J.).
Judge Hart entered findings of fact and conclusions of law after a patent bench trial related to cell phones with caller ID, text messaging, pictures or video. The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff Intellect Wireless’s patents because they were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Of particular interest, the Court held the following:
- Several declarations submitted to the PTO during prosecution of the patents in suit contained false statements regarding inventions, reduction to practice and diligence.
- The declarations were necessary to procure the patents in suit.
- None of the false statements were withdrawn, corrected or identified to the patent examiner.
- The clear and convincing evidence “strongly support[ed]” that the false statements were made with an intent to deceive, not just by mistake.
Nanochem Solutions, Inc. v. Global Green Prods., LLC, No. 10 C 3212, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2012) (Hart, Sen. J.).
Judge Hart denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of noninfringement. Defendants argued that plaintiff Nanochem failed to offer admissible proof of any direct infringes necessary to support Nanochem’s indirect infringement claims based upon defendant’s alleged sales of a solution used in the claimed methods. The Court held that there was a valid dispute over whether defendant’s business plans referring to using the solution were sufficient, but they did preclude entry of summary judgment.
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 09 C 2945, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2012) (Hart, Sen. J.).
Judge Hart denied defendant’s (collectively “HTC”) motion for summary judgment of inequitable conduct based upon the submission to the Patent Office of allegedly false and misleading declarations. The Court held that there were disputed questions of fact preventing summary judgment, without elaborating upon what facts were disputed. And based upon the parties’ papers, the Court reversed the inequitable conduct claims for an early bench trial.
The Court then ordered that, within four weeks, the parties file:
- Statements of undisputed facts;
- Proposed conclusions of law;
- Exhibit lists; and
- Witness lists.
This appears to be another example in the growing trend of Northern District judges looking for ways, like mini-Markmans and early Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, to streamline patent cases.