Federal Judiciary

Ring Plus "Cycle" Ends With Finding of Unenforceability

By Michael C. Smith

Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2009 WL 2184541(E.D.Tex. Jul 17, 2009) (NO. 5:08-CV-42-DF)
Judge: Folsom
Holding: Patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Yep, she's singing. 
Judge Folsom conducted a hearing on the defendant's claims that the plaintiff's patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and concluded that "[h]aving weighed both materiality and intent, the Court finds that Defendants have shown by clear and convincing evidence that the applicants for the '608 Patent made material misrepresentations coupled with an intent to deceive the USPTO.  Further, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing of equitable considerations to outweigh
the findings of materiality and intent. The Court thus finds that the '608 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct."
On the bright side for the plaintiff, defendants sought to have the case declared exceptional and have attorneys fees awarded, but Judge Folsom declined to go that far.  "Plaintiff's conduct has been less than exemplary," he conceded, but concluded that  "[o]n balance, Plaintiff's conduct has not been sufficiently egregious to justify an award of attorney's fees."  He did note that as a result of the Plaintiff's prior sins he had previously reduced Plaintiff's time limit for its trial presentation from seven and a half hours to five hours but reserved for consideration whether to impose any additional sanctions. 
As best I can recall, that's four holdings of patents as unenforceable (at least three followings verdicts of infringement) in the last eight months or so.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on July 27, 2009 (boomark / email).