Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc.

10 Citing cases

  1. Ottah v. Bracewell LLP

    21 Civ. 455 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2021)   Cited 4 times

    See, e.g., Ottah v. Verizon Servs. Corp., No. 19 Civ. 8552 (LGS), 2020 WL 4016739, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2020) 3 (granting summary judgment in favor of defendant), appeal dismissed, No. 2020-2198, 2020 WL 8615623 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2020); Ottah v. Nat'l Grid, No. 19 Civ. 8289 (PAE) (RWL), 2020 WL 2543105, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 2539075 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) (granting motion to dismiss); Ottah v. BMW, 230 F.Supp.3d 192, 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (granting motion to dismiss), aff'd sub nom. Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., No. 11 Civ. 6187 (RMB), 2012 WL 4841755, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012) (granting summary judgment in favor of defendant), aff'd, 524 Fed.Appx. 627 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Ottah v. First Mobile Techs., No. 10 Civ. 7296 (CM), 2012 WL 527200, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2012) (granting summary judgment in favor of defendant). The Court will discuss these cases, as relevant, below.

  2. Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler

    884 F.3d 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 51 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the claim term "book" could not plausibly be construed to mean "camera," even under the doctrine of equivalents

    The court observed that the Federal Circuit has previously ruled on the scope of the '840 Patent's claim, holding that the claim requires that any infringing device must be capable of being "removed without tools." Id . at 197 (citing Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc. , 524 Fed.Appx. 627, 629 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ) (" VeriFone "). The court observed that the MSJ Defendants submitted uncontroverted evidence that their accused cameras were mounted in such a way that tools were necessary to remove them.

  3. Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan Motors Co.

    No. 2017-1842 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2018)

    The court observed that the Federal Circuit has previously ruled on the scope of the '840 Patent's claim, holding that the claim requires that any infringing device must be capable of being "removed without tools." Id. at 197 (citing Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., 524 F. App'x 627, 629 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("VeriFone"). The court observed that the MSJ Defendants submitted uncontroverted evidence that their accused cameras were mounted in such a way that tools were necessary to remove them.

  4. Ottah v. Nat'l Grid

    22-CV-2935 (PAE) (RWL) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2022)

    The Court explained that, at its core, the case was about the scope of Ottah's rights under the Patent and that his claim was foreclosed because the very same issue had “already been repeatedly, decisively and consistently adjudicated by courts in this District as well as the Federal Circuit.” Id. at *11; see Ottah v. VeriFone Systems, Inc., No. 11-CV-6187, 2012 WL 4841755, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012), aff'd, 524 Fed.Appx. 627 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“VeriFone”); Ottah v. First Mobile Technologies, No. 10-CV-7296, 2012 WL 527200, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2012)

  5. Ottah v. Verifone Sys.

    21 Civ. 9645 (AT) (GWG) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    That lawsuit was resolved in Verifone's favor when the court granted summary judgment for Verifone on Ottah's claim that “VeriFone's fixed mounts for electronic displays in New York City taxicabs infringe” the ‘840 Patent. Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., 2012 WL 4841755, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012), affd, 524 Fed.Appx. 627 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In its decision, the court first reviewed the ‘840 Patent, finding that the patent's “sole claim consists of commonly understood words, such as ‘a book holder,' ‘for removable attachment,' ‘a clasp,' and ‘an arm.'” Id. at *2.

  6. Ottah v. Verizon Servs.

    19 Civ. 8552 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 16, 2020)

    This action, brought in September 2019, is one of a number initiated by Plaintiff in connection with the '840 Patent. See, e.g., Ottah v. Nat'l Grid, 19 Civ. 08289, 2020 WL 2543105, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 2539075 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) (granting motion to dismiss); Ottah v. BMW, 230 F. Supp. 3d 192, 193 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), aff'd sub nom., Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (same); Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., No. 11 Civ. 6187, 2012 WL 4841755, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012), aff'd, 524 F. App'x 627 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (same); Ottah v. First Mobile Techs., No. 10 Civ. 7296, 2012 WL 527200, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2012) (granting defendant summary judgment). II. LEGAL STANDARD

  7. Ottah v. BMW

    230 F. Supp. 3d 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting motion to dismiss

    The Federal Circuit has already ruled on the scope of the '840 patent, finding that any infringing device must be capable of being "removed without tools." Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc. , 524 Fed.Appx. 627, 629 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ; see also Ottah v. First Mobile Techs. , No. 10 CV 7296, 2012 WL 527200, at *5–6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2012) (holding that "only a product which can be attached quickly, removably, and without tools, in a manner akin to that of the '840 Patent, can infringe that patent"). MSJ Defendants have proffered uncontroverted evidence that the accused cameras are mounted in a fixed fashion both to their supporting structures and to Defendants' vehicles and that tools (and, in some cases, disassembly of other vehicle components) are necessary to remove them.

  8. Ottah v. VeriFone Sys.

    No. 2023-1219 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2023)

    Mr. Ottah appealed the 2012 decision and we affirmed. See Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., 524 Fed.Appx. 627, 629-30 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

  9. Ottah v. Bracewell LLP

    No. 2022-1876 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    clearly states that the book holder is for "removeable attachment," '840 patent, col. 6 l. 14, and the removable nature of the book holder was emphasized by Ottah during prosecution in response to a prior art rejection. See Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., 524 Fed.Appx. 627 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In contrast, the district court found, and Bracewell asserts, that the allegedly infringing camera mounting system is fixed and cannot be easily attached or removed.

  10. Ottah v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

    22-CV-10435 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2023)

    See Ottah v. First Mobile Techs., No. 10-CV-7296 (CM), 2012 WL 527200 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 12-1405 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2012); Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., No. 11-CV-6187 (RMB), 2012 WL 4841755 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012), aff'd, 524 Fed.Appx. 627 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2013) (per curiam); Ottah v. BMW, 230 F.Supp.3d 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), aff'd sub nom. Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler, 884 F.3d 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Ottah v. Nat'l Grid, No. 19-CV-8289 (PAE) (RWL), 2020 WL 2543105 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 2539075 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020), appeal dismissed, No. 20-2025 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2020); Ottah v. Verizon Servs. Corp., No. 19-CV-8552 (LGS), 2020 WL 4016739 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2020), appeal dismissed, No. 20-2198, 2020 WL 8615623 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2020); Ottah v. Bracewell LLP, No. 21-CV-455 (KPF), 2021 WL 5910065 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2021) (“Bracewell”), appeal transferred, No. 22-39 (2d Cir. June 6, 2022), aff'd, No. 22-1876, 2022 WL 16754378 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022); Ottah v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., No. 21-CV-9645 (AT) (GWG), 2022 WL 2206024 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 3031119 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2022), appeal transferred, No. 22-1629 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2022), aff'd, No. 23-1219, 2023