CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. et al
| Pennsylvania Western District Court | |
| Judge: | Nora Barry Fischer |
| Case #: | 2:09-cv-00290 |
| Nature of Suit | 830 Property Rights - Patent |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement |
| Case Filed: | Mar 06, 2009 |
| Re-opened: | Nov 24, 2015 |
| Terminated: | Feb 24, 2016 |
| Last checked: Tuesday Mar 17, 2015 9:49 PM EDT |
|
Counter Claimant
MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Counter Claimant
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD.
|
Represented By
|
|
Counter Defendant
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD.
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
|
Represented By
|
|
Special Master
DR. DANIEL J. COSTELLO, JR.
University of Notre Dame 230B Fitzpatrick Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556 |
|
|
Special Master
THOMAS T. FRAMPTON
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Sep 21 2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 25 MOTION to Transfer Case To The Northern District of California filed by MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD., MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. indicating that, for the reason stated within, Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California is denied. An appropriate order to follow. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 9/21/09. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Oct 01 2010
OPINION (regarding construction for disputed claim terms); An appropriate Order will follow. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/1/10. (jg) Modified on 10/4/2010. (jg, ) |
|
|
GPO
Oct 27 2010
ORDER indicating that Defendants shall search the emails and related documents maintained by Defendants' CEO and CTO, respectively, and shall produce the responsive documents found by November 5, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/27/10. (tpk) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 29 2010
d and the Court heard argument on August 27, 2010. (Docket Nos. 158; 161; 169; 174). The Court understands that, despite further discussion, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement on this issue and desire a ruling from the Court. Therefore, upon consideration of the parties' arguments, and for the following reasons, the Court overrules Defendants' objections and finds that Defendants shall make available a Rule 30(b)(6) witness for deposition in regard to Defendants corporate structure and tax strategy (details more fully stated in said Order); Therefore, having found that Plaintiff's discovery request is appropriate, coupled with Defendants' failure to produce a witness in accordance with the strictures of Rule 30(b)(6), it is hereby ordered that Defendants shall produce a witness to provide answers to Topic 1 of Plaintiffs Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Regarding Sales, Marketing, and Financial Matters within thirty (30) days of this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/29/10. (jg)58]. Defendants have objected to this discovery on the basis of relevance. 161. They further argue that the requested information is likely to be subject to the attorney-client privilege and is duplicative 174. The issue has been fully briefeMEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Presently before the Court is a discovery dispute concerning Plaintiff's request that Defendants designate and prepare a witness capable of testifying to Defendants' corporate structure and tax strategy. [1 |
|
|
GPO
Mar 18 2011
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons stated within, Defendants' Motion to Strike 252 is denied; that Defendants may, in accordance with Local Civil Rule 56(D), respond to the allegations of paragraphs 102-125 of Plaintiff's "Response to Marvell Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment," (Docket No. 233), by 3/24/11 at 5:00 p.m. As part of its calculation, the Court weighed Defendants' request that they be provided 10 days from today's Order to file their supplemental response. (Docket No. 252 at 4). However, in settling on the chosen date, the Court expresses a desire that this case continue on the existing briefing and argument schedule. (See Docket Nos. 225, 235). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/18/11. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Sep 28 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated within, the Court finds that claims 1-5 of the 839 Patent and claims 1-2 of the 180 Patent are not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,201,839 and 6,438,180 218 is therefore denied. An appropriate Order Follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 9/28/11. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Apr 10 2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within and despite its initial concerns, the Court finds that the Group I claims of the 839 and 180 Patents are not invalid under § 112 of the Patent Act. Therefore, Marvell's motion (Docket No. 318) is denied. The parties shall adhere to the schedule already in place for the remainder of expert discovery, the final round of summary judgment motions, and any Daubert motions. An appropriate order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/10/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Jun 12 2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Defendants' "Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration Re: Marvell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity" 339 is denied. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/12/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Aug 24 2012
tter of law. (Docket No. 357 at 1). CMU challenges this motion, arguing essentially that it is entitled to recover damages for these foreign sales, which only arose due to domestic infringement. (See Docket No. 428 at 1). The second motion is similar. In that motion, Marvell requests that the Court find that it (Marvell) cannot be found liable for infringement for the use of the patented technology by non-party Seagate Technology. (See Docket No. 360). As with the extraterritorial condMEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that this opinion addresses two of the pending motions because they raise similar issues. The first is the Defendants' (collectively, "Marvell") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement and No Damages with Respect to Extraterritorial Conduct. (Docket No. 356). In that motion, Marvell requests that this Court determine that it (Marvell) cannot be found liable for infringement of any methods claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,201,839 ("the '839 Patent") or 6,438,180 (the '180 Patent") (collectively, "the CMU Patents") for chips that are never used in the United States, and that Plaintiff ("CMU") cannot recover for sales of such chips as a mauct motion, Marvell also requests that this Court find that it (Marvell) cannot be liable for damages arising from its sales to Seagate. (Id.). As expected, CMU challenges this proposition. (See Docket Nos. 397, 430). After consideration of the parties' arguments and the filings pertaining to these motions, the Court has determined that both motions (Docket Nos. 356, 360) should be granted, in part, and denied, in part, in accordance with the indications more fully stated in said Opinion. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Aug 24 2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, the Court grants 352 Marvell's motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to Claims 11, 16, 19 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,201,839 and Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,438,180. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Aug 24 2012
xpert opinion, he will be precluded from offering such opinions at trial. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a proper limiting instruction in accord with this opinion and the following order 446. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg)MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that as to the motion filed by Defendants Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, "Marvell") to exclude the proffered expert testimony of Dr. Christopher Bajorek. (Docket No. 364), for reasons more fully stated within, said motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part. (details more fully stated in said Opinion). As Dr. Bajorek"s report does include information on which he is not qualified to provide an e |
|
|
GPO
Aug 24 2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that as to Plaintiff Carnegie Mellon University's ("CMU") Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony Regarding Purported Acceptable, Non-Infringing Alternatives (Docket No. 373), for reasons stated more fully within, said Motion is denied. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Aug 24 2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony of Creighton G. Hoffman (Docket No. 370), for reasons stated more fully within, said Motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part. The motion is granted, insofar as Mr. Hoffman shall not be permitted to provide any testimony as to his opinions labeled Opinion I and Opinion III. The motion is denied, insofar as Mr. Hoffman shall be permitted to testify as to the opinions expressed in Opinion II. This memorandum opinion does not address Mr. Hoffman's Opinion IV, which was not challenged. The Court shall order the filing of a proposed limiting instruction. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Aug 24 2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Catherine M. Lawton (Docket No. 367) is granted, in part, and denied, in part, in accord with the preceding discussion. The motion is granted to the extent that Ms. Lawton may not testify to total revenue, total profit, or total margin, except to start her analysis. The motion is denied in all other respects, such that Ms. Lawton may refer to the total number of sales, total apportioned revenue, average price per chip, operating profit per chip, and apportioned profit per chip in making her calculations. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a proper limiting instruction in accord with this Opinion and the following Order. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/24/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 02 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, Marvell's Motion in Limine N. D11 Re: Precluding CMU from Introducing Evidence of Compliance With 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) 520 is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Marvell's motion is granted to the extent that CMU will be barred from presenting any evidence of compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) as to the alleged infringement of the '839 Patent or of any pre-suit attempts at providing actual notice of infringement of the '839 Patent to Marvell. CMU is likewise precluded from introducing evidence of damages as to the '839 Patent prior to its filing of this lawsuit on 3/6/09. Marvell's motion is denied to the extent that it seeks to limit damages as to the alleged infringement of the '180 Patent. The Court further orders that CMU submit a supplemental opinion on damages consistent with this Opinion by 11/13/12 at 12:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/2/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 02 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Plaintiff CMU's "Motion in Limine No. 1 To Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Marvell's Patent and Alleged 'Complexity of Patents-in-suit'" 494 is denied; Counsel for the parties are hereby ordered to provide a joint limiting instruction on or before 11/9/12 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/2/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 02 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 485 Defendant Marvell Technology Group's (Marvell) Motion in Limine No. D3 Re: Precluding CMU from Introducing Evidence of Willfulness; Marvell's motion (Docket No. 485) is DENIED without prejudice, with the Court to reserve its ruling on the issue of willfulness until the parties have had an opportunity to present their evidence at trial. Counsel for the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to provide joint interrogatories and jury instructions to this end on or before November 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/2/12. (lks) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 05 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Defendant Marvell's Motion in Limine No. D9 to Exclude Reference to the Entire Price, Profit, and/or Margin Associated with Any One or More Accused Chips 514 is denied; counsel for the parties shall provide joint jury instructions in accord with this Court's opinions on or before November 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/5/12. (lks) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 06 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Defendant Marvell's Motion in Limine No. D10 To Preclude CMU from Introducing Evidence and Argument Regarding Excess Profits, Premiums, and Operating Profit Premiums 517 is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/6/12. (lks) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 06 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Marvell's "Motion in Limine No. D12 To Preclude CMU From Introducing Evidence and Argument Regarding Any Compensatory Damages Beyond a Reasonably Royalty" 523 is granted, in part and denied, in part; Marvell's Motion is granted to the extent that CMU is precluded from introducing evidence or argument at trial of the prospective harms to CMU (as set forth in pages 377-79 of Ms. Lawtons expert report) as a result of the alleged failure of Marvell to enter into a license for the patents-in-suit; and, Marvell's Motion is denied to the extent that it seeks a pretrial order precluding all evidence of the economic circumstances of CMU and the DSSC at the time of the hypothetical negotiation. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/6/2012. (bdk) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 07 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that CMU's "Motion in Limine No. 4 To Preclude Evidence or Argument Relating to the Intel Subscription Agreement" (Docket No. 500) and, "Motion in Limine No. 5 To Preclude Evidence or Argument Relating to CMU's 2006 'Highly Speculative Forecast'" (Docket No. 502) are DENIED; the parties shall provide a joint limiting instruction on or before November 9, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. with respect to the proper use of the proposed evidence discussed in this Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/2012. (bdk) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 07 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Marvell's Motions in Limine No. D5 re: Arguments and Evidence Relating to Copying of CMU Patents or Technology or that Marvell does not Respect Intellectual Property 489 and No. D6 re: Evidence that References Kavcic in a Context Not Specifically Referring to the Asserted CMU Patents, 508 are denied; counsel for the parties shall provide joint jury instructions in accord with this Court's opinions on or before November 9, 2012 at 5:00p.m. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/12. (lks) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 07 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that CMU's Motion in Limine No. 3 to Preclude Certain Expert Opinion Testimony 498 is DENIED, without prejudice to its ability to raise the same objections at trial. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/12. (lks) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 07 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 to Preclude Irrelevant or Highly Prejudicial Evidence or Argument, 496 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/12. (lks) |
|
|
GPO
Nov 29 2012
ORDER indicating that for the reasons stated more fully within, Marvell's Emergency Motion to Strike CMU's Attempt to Include Noninfringing Sales of Chips that are Never Used in the U.S. in the Damages Case it Intends to Present to the Jury 656 is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/29/12. (lks) |
|
|
GPO
Dec 15 2012
(bdk)MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that Marvell's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Catharine M. Lawton is granted, in part and denied, in part (details more fully stated in said Memoradum Opinion). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/15/2012. |
|
|
GPO
Dec 17 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Jury selection in this patent infringement action commenced on 11/26/12. Presently before the Court is Marvell's "Motion for Reconsideration re: Court's Order Sustaining CMU's Objections to Disputed Defendant"s Exhibit DX-189 153". (Docket No. 660). CMU opposes this motion and filed a "Preliminary Response in Opposition." (Docket Nos. 664). The Court heard argument on the topic again and again during trial conferences November 26-30, 2012. (Docket Nos. 666, 669, 671, 673, 674). The Court writes now to explain its reasoning in granting reconsideration and admitting DX-189. For the reasons more fully stated in said Order, Marvell's motion 660 was granted on the record during the proceedings on 11/30/12. (Docket No. 674 at 36-37). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/17/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Dec 17 2012
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that jury selection and trial in this patent infringement action commenced on 11/26/12. Presently before the Court is Marvell's Oral Motion to Strike Slide 19 of Plaintiff's Demonstrative and Associate Testimony (Docket No. 674". (Docket No. 660). CMU opposes this motion and filed a Response in Opposition 675. The Court heard argument during trial upon the oral motion on 11/30/12 674. Consistent with the record, and for the following reasons, Marvell's motion is denied. (Docket No. 674 at 36-37). (Details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/17/12. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Feb 28 2013
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 800 Defendants' Motion to Compel or to Review in Camera Documents Withheld by CMU that are Relevant to Laches (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/28/13. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Mar 29 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Defendants' "Motion for Leave to File Certain Slides and Photographs Used by the Parties During Trial Under Seal" 772 and "Motion to File Under Seal the Affidavit of Sehat Sutardja in Support of Marvells Motion for Judgment on Laches" 797 are denied. In so holding, the Court also denies Marvell's requests as expressed within Marvell's briefing (Docket No. 772, 818) for leave to seal slides at Docket No. 708 and to redact portions of the transcripts. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/29/13. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix A) (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Apr 17 2013
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for the reasons stated more fully within, Defendants MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. and MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.'s "Motion for Reconsideration and Stay of this Court's Order Denying Marvell's Motion to Seal" (Docket No. 846) is denied. Marvell shall file an un-redacted version of Dr. Sutardja's affidavit and all disputed slides by 4/24/13. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 4/17/13. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Apr 24 2013
her on 4/24/13. (jg)MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Plaintiff's "Motion to Strike Certain Paragraphs of the Affidavits of Sehat Sutardja and Zining Wu" (Docket No. 830) is denied. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fisc |
|
|
GPO
Jun 26 2013
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 285 791 is denied without prejudice to the right of Plaintiff to renew same after disposition of any appeal by the Federal Circuit and/or further proceeding at the trial level. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/26/13. (jg) Modified on 6/26/2013. (jg, ) |
|
|
GPO
Aug 23 2013
OPINION indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Defendants' Motion for "Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, New Trial on Non-Damages Issues" 805 is denied in part, to the extent predicated on CMU's alleged misconduct. A forthcoming opinion will address the remaining issues of this motion. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/23/13. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Sep 23 2013
OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated within, the Court denies Marvell's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, New Trial on Non-Damages Issues 805, and Marvell's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial And/Or Remittitur With Respect To Damages 807. The Court grants CMU's Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages 790, in part, on willfulness, and reserves its ruling on enhanced damages for a forthcoming opinion. The Court also reserves its rulings on Marvell's Motion for Judgment on Laches 802, CMU's Motion for Permanent Injunction, Post-Judgment Royalties, and Supplemental Damages 786, and CMU's Motion for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest 788, for a memorandum opinion that will be filed in due course. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 9/23/13. (jg) |
|
|
GPO
Jan 14 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that Marvell's Motion for Judgment on Laches 802 is denied (details more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/14/14. (bdk) |
|
|
GPO
Mar 31 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that CMU's Motion for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest, (Docket No. 788), Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Post-Judgment Royalties, and Supplemental Damages, (Docket No. 786), and Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages, (Docket No. 790) are granted, in part and denied, in part; CMU's Motion for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest 788 is granted to the extent that CMU seeks post-judgment interest under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 but denied to the extent that CMU seeks prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 284; CMU's Motion for a Permanent Injunction, Post-Judgment Royalties, and Supplemental Damages 786 is granted to the extent that CMU will be awarded supplemental damages in the amount of $79,550,288.00; denied to the extent that a permanent injunction is sought; and granted, in part, as the Court will order an on-going royalty of $0.50 per sale of Accused Chips by Marvell; and, CMU's Motion for a Finding of Willful Infringement and Enhanced Damages 790 is granted to the extent that the Court will award enhanced damages at a rate of 1.23 multiplied by the jury's award and supplemental damages, for a total enhancement of $287,198,828.60, but denied to the extent that CMU seeks enhanced damages at a higher rate (details more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 3/31/2014. (bdk) |
| 1. | Marvell Gets Reduced Damages in $1.17 Billion Patent Verdict (bloomberg.com) |
| Submitted Wed 08/05/2015 | |
| Docket last updated: 7 hours ago |
| Wednesday, June 14, 2017 | ||
| 1015 | 1015
appeal
USCA Order - (Does Not Terminate Appeal)
Thu 06/15 9:23 AM
ORDER of USCA for the Federal Circuit as to952 Notice of Appeal that the Portion of Carnegie Mellon's Petition for Re-hearing En Banc Held in Abeyance by the Court's November 17, 2015 Order is DENIED as MOOT. The remainder of the Mandate is Hereby Issued. (jsp) |
|