Opinion
No. 05-CV-2045-LRR.
November 9, 2006
ORDER
Before the court is the Motion to Enlarge Court Order Enjoining Suits Against Joyner's Customers ("Motion") (docket no. 104), filed by Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Joyner Technologies, Inc. ("Joyner") on November 8, 2006. In the Motion, Joyner represents to the court that Plaintiff ProBatter Sports, LLC ("ProBatter") has filed two additional lawsuits against its customers and that "[t]hese suits are virtually carbon copies of the Customer Suits already enjoined by the [court's November 3, 2006] Order and raise identical issues." The suits are ProBatter Sports, LLC v. Carolina Line Drive, LLC, No. 0:2006CV02963 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2006) ("South Carolina Lawsuit") and ProBatter v. H.M. Batter's Box, Inc., 2:2006CV00442 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2006) ("Texas Lawsuit").
ProBatter has not filed a resistance, although the time for doing so has not passed. Joyner requests expedited relief. The court finds it is appropriate to rule on the Motion without waiting for a resistance. See LR 7.1(e) ("[I]f circumstances . . . warrant, the court may elect to rule on a motion without waiting for a resistance or a response.").
The court takes judicial notice of the Complaints filed in the South Carolina and Texas Lawsuits. See, e.g., Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n. 2 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that a court "may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records"); In re BankAm. Corp. Secs. Litig., 263 F.3d 795, 804 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming district court's issuance of antisuit injunction and taking judicial notice of records in state court case); see also Genentech, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 122 F.3d 1409, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (taking judicial notice of court records) (citing Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989)). Consistent with Joyner's representations to the court, in both lawsuits ProBatter alleges that one of Joyner's customers has literally infringed the '134 Patent and the '512 Patent by using the ALLSTAR PRO 5000 in combination with a HomePlate pitching machine, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). For the same reasons expressed in the court's November 3, 2006 Order, the court shall enjoin ProBatter from further prosecuting the South Carolina and Texas Lawsuits. No bond is required.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) Joyner's Motion (docket no. 104) is GRANTED;
(2) ProBatter is enjoined from further prosecuting ProBatter Sports, LLC v. Carolina Line Drive, LLC, No. 0:2006CV02963 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2006) and ProBatter v. H.M. Batter's Box, Inc., 2:2006CV00442 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2006).
IT IS SO ORDERED.