Opinion
Case No. 5:12 CV 3127
09-14-2015
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Technical Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the decisions entered by Judge Polster in GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of America, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-3131 (N.D. Ohio); GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-3132 (N.D. Ohio); GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Feit Electric Company, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-3134 (N.D. Ohio); and GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. MSI, LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-3136 (N.D. Ohio) invalidating the '999 and '864 patents that are the bases of the action herein. Defendant, Technical Consumer Products, Inc., asserts, and Plaintiff, GE Lighting Solutions, LLC ("GE"), acknowledges, the preclusive effect of the invalidity determination pursuant to Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971) and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 170 F.3d. 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999). GE requests that this Court enter judgment forthwith so that this action can be included in the consolidated appeal of Judge Polster's decisions. Accordingly the matter is DISMISSED.
In which the Supreme Court overrruled Triplett v. Lowell in part finding that issue preclusion or "collateral estoppel" is permitted in the context of patent infringement suits "once it is determined that the issue in both actions [is] identical" and the entity asserting collateral estoppel faces "a charge of infringement of a patent that has once been declared invalid" whether or not the entity seeking the protection of the prior determination was a party to action that resulted in the invalidity finding. Id. at 347 and 350.
In which the Federal Circuit, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Blonder-Tongue, summarized the estoppel principle: " 'once the claims of a patent are held invalid in a suit involving one alleged infringer, an unrelated party who is sued for infringement of those claims may reap the benefits of the invalidity decision under the principles of collateral estoppel.' (internal citation omitted) Id. at 1379 citing Mendenhall v. Barber-Green Co., 26 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1994). --------
In addition to a final appealable order, GE also seeks an order instructing Technical Consumer Products, Inc. to retain all documents "within GE's understanding of the scope of GE's discovery requests." (Brief in Response to the Court's August 14, 2015 Order, 2.) In response Technical Consumer Products, Inc. objects that it would be impossible for the Court to enter an order based on GE's understanding, and states that it continues to maintain material relevant to the matter. To the extent that GE seeks an order based on the party's own interpretation of discovery obligations that motion is DENIED. Both parties remain under an obligation to abide by the duties imposed under the Federal and Local Rules governing record keeping in the context of litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
John R . Adams
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Dated: September 14, 2015