Example of denial by judge on the ground of Laches
in response to
by
Message: Example of denial by judge on the ground of Laches
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________
CORNELL RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.,
and CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
Plaintiffs,
Civ. Action No.
vs. 5:01-CV-1974 (NAM/DEP)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
Defendant.summary judgment in connection with each of the five motions.
Accordingly, it is herebyRECOMMENDED that:
1) Plaintiffs’ motions to strike various submissions of HP (Dkt.
Nos. 714, 722, 739) submitted in connection with the pending motions, be
GRANTED, in part. As the foregoing reflects, I recommend that portions of
the declaration of Tom Schrader, Brydges Decl. (Dkt. No. 698) Exh. 4,
including ¶¶ 13-16, 20, 22, 24 of that declaration, be stricken. Similarly, I
recommend that excerpts of the declaration of Gregg Huff, Brydges Decl.
(Dkt. No. 707) Exh. 10, including ¶¶ 6, 7, 11, and 12 thereof, be stricken.
2) With the exception of the foregoing, both plaintiffs’ motions to
strike portions of HP’s submissions, and HP’s objections to submissions by
plaintiffs of evidentiary materials, be OVERRULED and DENIED, based
Case 5:01-cv-01974-RRR-DEP Document 787 Filed 01/31/07 Page 192 of 194
193
principally upon the fact that they do not impact upon ruling on the five
pending dispositive motions.
3) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the
ground of laches (Dkt. No. 688) be DENIED.
4) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the basis
of patent exhaustion (Dkt. No. 689) be DENIED.
5) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the basis
of invalidity (Dkt. No. 691) be DENIED.
6) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the basis
of non-infringement (Dkt. No. 690) be GRANTED, in part, and that all
claims of infringement, both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents,
with respect to claims 7 through 12, 16, 17 and 19 of the ’115 patent be
DISMISSED, but that the motion otherwise be DENIED.
7) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the basis
of royalty base (Dkt. No. 692) be DENIED.
NOTICE: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may lodge
written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court within Ten (10) days. FAILURE TO SO
OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 28
Case 5:01-cv-01974-RRR-DEP Document 787 Filed 01/31/07 Page 193 of 194
194
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72; Roland v. Racette,
984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy
of this Report and Recommendation upon the parties by electronic means.
Dated: January 31, 2007
Syracuse, NY
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________
CORNELL RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.,
and CORNELL UNIVERSITY,
Plaintiffs,
Civ. Action No.
vs. 5:01-CV-1974 (NAM/DEP)
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
Defendant.summary judgment in connection with each of the five motions.
Accordingly, it is herebyRECOMMENDED that:
1) Plaintiffs’ motions to strike various submissions of HP (Dkt.
Nos. 714, 722, 739) submitted in connection with the pending motions, be
GRANTED, in part. As the foregoing reflects, I recommend that portions of
the declaration of Tom Schrader, Brydges Decl. (Dkt. No. 698) Exh. 4,
including ¶¶ 13-16, 20, 22, 24 of that declaration, be stricken. Similarly, I
recommend that excerpts of the declaration of Gregg Huff, Brydges Decl.
(Dkt. No. 707) Exh. 10, including ¶¶ 6, 7, 11, and 12 thereof, be stricken.
2) With the exception of the foregoing, both plaintiffs’ motions to
strike portions of HP’s submissions, and HP’s objections to submissions by
plaintiffs of evidentiary materials, be OVERRULED and DENIED, based
Case 5:01-cv-01974-RRR-DEP Document 787 Filed 01/31/07 Page 192 of 194
193
principally upon the fact that they do not impact upon ruling on the five
pending dispositive motions.
3) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the
ground of laches (Dkt. No. 688) be DENIED.
4) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the basis
of patent exhaustion (Dkt. No. 689) be DENIED.
5) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the basis
of invalidity (Dkt. No. 691) be DENIED.
6) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the basis
of non-infringement (Dkt. No. 690) be GRANTED, in part, and that all
claims of infringement, both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents,
with respect to claims 7 through 12, 16, 17 and 19 of the ’115 patent be
DISMISSED, but that the motion otherwise be DENIED.
7) Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the basis
of royalty base (Dkt. No. 692) be DENIED.
NOTICE: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may lodge
written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court within Ten (10) days. FAILURE TO SO
OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 28
Case 5:01-cv-01974-RRR-DEP Document 787 Filed 01/31/07 Page 193 of 194
194
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and 72; Roland v. Racette,
984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy
of this Report and Recommendation upon the parties by electronic means.
Dated: January 31, 2007
Syracuse, NY
David E Peebles
U.S. Magistrate judge
12 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
16
May 13, 2014 02:08PM
6
May 14, 2014 10:16AM
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply