District of Massachusetts IP Blog

Nuance Buys Longtime Opponent Vlingo

Following years of intense patent litigation / "all out war", former competitors Nuance and Vlingo have joined sides following Nuance's recent purchase of Vlingo.  Given the protracted litigation and Vlingo's recent jury trial victory over Nuance, I wonder what the difference is in purchase price between now and what might have been several years ago.

While this can be taken as a victory for both sides, the real winner is Judge Zobel and the federal courts, who no longer have to deal with these two being at each other's throats. 

No Settlement In Class of 3000 Case

Following a remand from the First Circuit, a case between an artist and the Cartoon Network over the animated series “Class of 3000” was reassigned to Judge Saris.  Judge Harrington had originally granted a motion by the Cartoon Network to enforce a settlement agreement but the First Circuit reversed and sent it back for factual determinations regarding whether the plaintiff could be bound by the actions of his attorney during negotiations.

Judge Saris ruled no, and declined to order enforcement of the settlement.  In particular, Judge Saris found that a voicemail and emails between the artist and his lawyer were sufficiently ambiguous as to whether the artist intended to give the Cartoon Network a general release as part of the settlement.  The ambiguous written communications combined with the artist’s “emotional testimony” convinced the court that there was insufficient evidence evincing an intent to settle. 

So the beat goes on. 

McGee v. Cartoon Network, Inc., 08-11818-PBS (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2011)

Judge Wolf Vacates Markman Decision to Facilitate Settlement

Some judges, when faced with a motion to vacate a decision in view of a pending settlement, do so without comment.  Other judges balk at such requests.  If the parties have relied on (and the court has expended) judicial resources to get to judgment, why should the court vacate once a winner and loser have been declared?

When faced with such a request back in June 2010 Judge Wolf ordered the parties to brief the issue.  (I’m sure that made them happy.)

Download Wolf ordering briefing of vacatur request

After reviewing those briefs, Judge Wolf did agree to vacate an order of summary judgment / claim construction, as a precondition to a settlement agreement.  The detailed decision explains how, with non-final judgments and other interlocutory orders, the district court maintains broad discretion to vacate.  The decision also notes how the policy reasons for not vacating are very different before final judgment has entered.

In this case, the vacated order came early in the case, the parties had been actively pursuing settlement, and vacatur was necessary to bring the case to a close.  So Judge Wolf determined that the public was better served by permitting settlement rather than requiring that the early order stand.

Download Lycos settlement decision

Lycos, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc., 07-11469-MLW (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 2010)

Door Closes On Latch Infringement Case

Judge Tauro entered a consent judgment in the recently filed lock dispute between Amesbury and Fasco, who appear to have settled their differences.  The parties agree that four independent claims of asserted Patent No. 5,820,170 are infringed and that no claims are invalid or unenforceable.  Fasco is enjoined from selling the Fasco Multipoint Locks starting on June 30, 2011.  Monetary terms (if there were any) are of course not mentioned in the judgment. 

Amesbury Door Hardware, Inc. v. Fasco Die Cast, Inc., 10-11929-JLT (D. Mass. Jan. 25, 2011)

Armistice Declared in Water Gun Case

Following a June lawsuit, it appears that Hasbro has settled a patent infringement case against Buzz Bee Toys related to toy water guns.  A consent judgment was recently entered where Buzz Bee acknowledged the validity and enforceability of one of the patents in question and was enjoined from further making, selling, etc. products under that patent.  For the other asserted patents, Buzz Bee represented that it was not the maker / seller of the respective accused products.  Based on those representations, those claims were dismissed with prejudice. 

Hasbro, Inc. v. Buzz Bee Toys, Inc., 10-10906-MAP (D. Mass. Nov. 29, 2010)

Airplane Wi-Fi Disputes Grounded

Ambit Corp. had separately sued Delta Airlines and Aircell LLC for infringement of Patent No. 7,400,858 in a dispute over the defendants’ Gogo Inflight Internet system.  Delta’s attempts to invalidate the patent on sua sponte summary judgment were unsuccessful (see here), but Aircell was able to convince a jury that the asserted claims were invalid for a host of reasons including anticipation, obviousness, inadequate written description, and lack of enablement.  (See the verdict form here: Download Ambit.)

 

A few weeks after the jury verdict, Ambit settled with Aircell and Delta and the cases were dismissed.

 

Ambit Corp. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 09-10217-WGY (D. Mass. Aug. 17, 2010)

Ambit Corp. v. Aircell LLC, 09-10217-WGY (D. Mass. Aug. 17, 2010)

Order Enforcing Settlement Terms Reversed

The First Circuit reversed Senior Judge Harrington’s decision to enforce an agreement settling a copyright dispute over material in the animated television series “Class of 3000.” 

 

At a hearing Judge Harrington had determined that settlement had been reached, relying on an email sent from plaintiff’s counsel to defendant’s counsel agreeing on three main terms.  (Interestingly, neither plaintiff nor plaintiff’s counsel, who had withdrawn several weeks earlier, was at this hearing.)  The plaintiff, appearing pro se before the First Circuit, disputed that a settlement was reached and highlighted a number of terms (such as continuing rights) that were not resolved.

 

The First Circuit held that because there were disputed questions of fact, the District Court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing regarding the plaintiff attorney’s authority to bind the client to the settlement.

 

Case remanded.

 

McGee v. Cartoon Network, Inc., 10-1070 (1st Cir. July 8, 2010)

Laser Treatment Case Settles

Cynosure and Cooltouch have settled a patent infringement action that was pending before Judge Gorton.  The consent judgment states that Cooltouch infringed claims of Cynosure’s Patent No. 6,206,873 directed to a method for eliminating adipose layers using laser energy and that the patent is valid and enforceable.

 

This settlement puts to rest the latest in a chain of lawsuits surrounding medical devices which apply laser energy.  Various other cases across the country have included a variety of entities (as both plaintiffs and defendants), some of which no longer exist, including Diomed, VNUS, AngioDynamics, and Vascular Solutions.

 

Cynosure, Inc. v. Cooltouch, Inc., 08-10026-NMG (D. Mass. Feb. 5, 2010)