Shing Products v. Sunbeam

1 Citing case

  1. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp

    736 F. Supp. 2d 623 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Travel Sentry, the Court held that Tropp's "direct infringement claim against Travel Sentry [was] only viable if there [was] sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to infer that Travel Sentry directs and controls the TSA's performance" of the last two steps of the claimed method, pursuant to the joint infringement or "mastermind" doctrine as articulated by the Federal Circuit in the BMC and Muniauction cases.

    See Wing Shing Prods. (BVI) Co. Ltd. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 357, 359-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("[Defendant] advances four independent grounds for summary judgment: invalidity of the [allegedly infringed] patent; collateral estoppel; non-infringement; and laches. . . . Because the Court finds as a matter of law that the accused devices do not infringe the [] patent, it need not address [the] other arguments."), aff'd, No. 2010-1039, 2010 WL 1784720 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2010). The Federal Circuit has consistently held that "only a limited universe of circumstances warrant a finding of exceptionality in a patent case: `inequitable conduct before the PTO; litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified, and otherwise bad faith litigation; a frivolous suit or willful infringement.'"