High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
IN
THE UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
DISTRICT
OF DELAWARE
SIGRAM
SCHINDLERBETEILIGUNGSGESELLSCHAFT
mbH 1Plaintiff,
v.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,Defendant.CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,Plaintiff,
v.
SIGRAM
SCHINDLERBETEILIGUNGSGESELLSCHAFT
mbH,Defendant.
)
)
))))
) Civ. No. 09-72-SLR
))))))
)
)
) Civ. No.
09-232-SLR
)
)
)))
Steven J. Balick, Esquire and
John
G. Day, Esquire
of
Ashby
& Geddes, Wilmington,Delaware. Counsel
for
Teles
AG
Informationtechnologien.
Of
Counsel: David
W.
Long, Esquire,
Mark
L.
Whitaker, Esquire and Monica Lateef, Esquire
of
Howrey
LLP,Washington, D.C.1The court substitutes Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft
mbH
(USSBG")
for
Teles
AG
Ingormationtechnologien ("Teles"),
as
discussed
infra
in section IV-A.
The
court refers
to
Teles
in discussing
the
pre-acquisition procedural history and inconnection with
Teles's
motion
to
amend and opposition
to
Cisco's motion
to
dismisswhich gave rise
tothe
substitution determination.
Jack
B.
Blumenfeld, Esquire and Rodger
D.
Smith
II,
Esquire
of
Morris, Nichols, Arsht
&
Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.
Of
Counsel:
J.
Anthony Downs, Esquire and Lana
S.
Shiferman, Esquire
of
Goodwin Procter LLP,Boston, Massachusetts.Dated: July 26, 2010Wilmington, Delaware
MEMORANDUM OPINION
~
I.
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the court are ten motions brought in two related patentinfringement actions involving
SS8G
and Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") relating toTeles's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,954,453 (lithe '453 patent"), 7,145,902 ("the '902 patent")and 7,483,431 (lithe '431 patent") (collectively, the "patents in suit"). The proceduralhistory
of
these actions is complex and detailed below. Pending before the court are:(1) Teles's motion to amend its pleadings (Civ. No. 09-72,
0.1.
86; Civ. No. 09-232,
0.1.
170); (2) Cisco's motion to dismiss for lack
of
subject matter jurisdiction (Civ. No. 09-72,
0.1.
198; Civ. No. 09-232,
0.1.
281); (3) Cisco's motion to exclude the opinion
of
SS8G's
expert Christopher Spadea on commercial success (Civ. No. 09-72,
0.1.
202; Civ.
No.
09-232,
0.1.
285); (4)
SS8G's
motion to limit the testimony
of
Cisco's expert Thomas
La
Porta (Civ. No. 09-72,
0.1.
205; Civ. No. 09-232,
0.1.
288); (5)
SS8G's
motion to limitthe testimony
of
Cisco's expert Kevin Negus (Civ. No. 09-72,
0.1.
206; Civ.
No.
09-232,
0.1.
289); (6) SS8G's motion for partial summary judgment
of
no inequitable conduct(Civ.
No.
09-72,
0.1.
216; Civ. No. 09-232,
0.1.
299); (7) Cisco's motion for summaryjudgment
of
noninfringement (Civ.
No.
09-72,
0.1.
218; Civ.
No.
09-232,0.1. 301); (8)SS8G's motion for partial summary judgment
of
infringement (Civ. No. 09-72,
0.1.
222;Civ.
No.
09-232,
0.1.
305); (9) Cisco's motion for partial summary judgment for invalidity
of
the '431 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§
112 and for confirmation
of
the priority datefor the '431 patent (Civ. No. 09-72,
0.1.
223; Civ. No. 09-232,
0.1.
306); and (10) Cisco'smotion for summary judgment
of
invalidity (Civ.
No.
09-72,
0.1.
227; Civ.
No.
09-232,
Add a Comment