Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Vanguard Prods. Group, Inc., No. 02 C 3767, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 5, 2012) (Castillo, J.).
Judge Castillo awarded costs as to each party in this patent infringement action after the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Anderson’s entry of judgment in favor of defendants. The Court awarded defendants costs and expert fees of approximately $32,000 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 26(b)(4)(E), and awarded plaintiff Se-Kure approximately $14,000 in expert fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E) to be credited against defendants’ costs. Of particular interest, the Court ruled as follows:
- Because the Court held Se-Kure’s patent invalid, defendants were prevailing parties.
- Defendant’s amended petition was not untimely. It added costs, but it was filed within thirty days of the Court’s judgment as required by Local Rule 54.1(a).
- The Court awarded hearing transcript costs up to the relevant Federal Judicial Center allowed cost. The Court did not award expedited costs because defendants did not provide a justification for the extra cost of the expedited service.
- The Court awarded the agreed amounts for deposition transcripts.
- The Court reduced defendants’ copying costs by approximately $3,300 for copy costs after depositions on that were not clearly tied to the case.
- The Court denied costs for a demonstrative because half of it was blown up portions of text from testimony and exhibits. The other half was figures at the center of a controversy regarding Defendant’s mischaracterization of evidence.
- Although the Court had not identified a case within the Seventh Circuit awarding expert fees for depositions to a losing party, the Court held that the language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E) did not limit the award of expert fees to a prevailing party. So, the Court awarded all parties their expert fees for deposition time, including both reasonable preparation and deposition time.
Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 10 C 718, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur sua sponte struck defendants’ answer and counterclaim with leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim based upon a variety of pleading deficiencies. First, the Court struck statements that the patents-in-suit "speak for [themselves]" and related answers citing State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). But the Court granted CQG leave to replead those answers.
The Court also struck several affirmative defenses. CQG’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) defense was struck because it was not an affirmative defense. And no leave to replead was granted because when plaintiff Trading Technologies’ ("TT") allegations were accepted as true CQG’s defense was "simply dead wrong." The Court also struck various affirmative defenses that were only "skeletal recitals" of legal doctrines, with leave to replead if CQG could. Finally, the Court struck CQG’s noninfringement defense because denials in the answer already brought infringement into issue.
The Court also struck CQG’s counterclaim with leave to replead for failure to meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards. Finally, the Court ordered that CGQ’s counsel should not charge CQG for preparing CGQ’s amended answer and counterclaim and should send CQG a copy of the Court’s Order.
Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Diam USA, Inc., No. 06 C 4857, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2009) (Cox, Mag. J.).*
Judge Cox denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude defendants’ patent law expert witness, but placed limits on the expert’s testimony following the reasoning of a previous opinion in a related case about the same expert — click here to read about that opinion in the Blog’s archives. The Court held that a patent expert’s testimony could aid the Court’s understanding of Patent Office procedures and of what would have been material to a reasonable patent examiner. But the patent law expert was not allowed to testify as to any legal conclusions. And the testimony would be given outside the jury’s presence to avoid any prejudice. Because the Court decides inequitable conduct, there was no need for the jury to hear the expert’s testimony.
* Click here for more on this case and related cases in the Blog’s archives. Also, note that the Court continues the progressive use of footnote citation.