Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-3078 - Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc.


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-3078 - Shure Incorporated v. ClearOne, Inc.
March 16, 2018
PDF | More
).MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, ClearOne's motion [90, 145] for preliminary injunction is denied. As detailed in the Opinion, there is a substantial question on the validity of the '186 patent. But ClearOne did otherwise prove infringement on Claim 7, joint infringement with Biamp and QSC, and irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law. If not for the substantial question on validity, the preliminary injunction would have issued. The Court urges the parties to reassess their settlement positions as promptly as possible, to avoid the further risk and delay of litigation. Assuring certainty of outcome with a settlement will allow both sides to move forward; otherwise, the only certainty from further litigation will be fees, expenses, and distraction of each side's executives and engineers. Of course, it ultimately is up to the parties whether they wish to settle. To allow time to assess the situation (as well as address the propriety of sealing), the status hearing of 03/19/2018 is reset to 04/03/2018 at 1:30 p.m. In the meantime, the Court adopts the parties' proposed initial schedule on the '806 patent (Local Patent Rules 2.1-2.5), R. 277 at 3, so the parties shall follow those agreed deadlines. The parties shall file another joint status report proposing the remainder of the litigation schedule on 03/28/2018. The prior motion 63 filed by Shure to dismiss the first amended counterclaim is denied, as explained on page 2 at n.3. An initial public redacted version of the Opinion will be entered (some of the citations in the Opinion are to sealed evidence but cannot possibly be properly sealed, so redactions were not applied to those sentences). The parties must file a joint position paper on sealing on 03/21/2018, so that another public version of the Opinion, with as few redactions as possible (and perhaps zero), may be entered. (slb, ) Modified on 4/3/2018 (ew,
March 16, 2018
PDF | More
(PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION) MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. (This is the initial public redacted version of the Opinion.) For the reasons stated in the Opinion, ClearOne's motion [90, 145] for preliminary injunction is denied. As detailed in the Opinion, there is a substantial question on the validity of the '186 patent. But ClearOne did otherwise prove infringement on Claim 7, joint infringement with Biamp and QSC, and irreparable harm and inadequate remedy at law. If not for the substantial question on validity, the preliminary injunction would have issued. The Court urges the parties to reassess their settlement positions as promptly as possible, to avoid the further risk and delay of litigation. Assuring certainty of outcome with a settlement will allow both sides to move forward; otherwise, the only certainty from further litigation will be fees, expenses, and distraction of each side's executives and engineers. Of course, it ultimately is up to the parties whether they wish to settle. To allow time to assess the situation (as well as address the propriety of sealing), the status hearing of 03/19/2018 is reset to 04/03/2018 at 1:30 p.m. In the meantime, the Court adopts theactions as possible (and perhaps zero), may be entered.Emailed notice(slb, ) parties' proposed initial schedule on the '806 patent (Local Patent Rules 2.1-2.5), R. 277 at 3, so the parties shall follow those agreed deadlines. The parties shall file another joint status report proposing the remainder of the litigation schedule on 03/28/2018. The prior motion 63 filed by Shure to dismiss the first amended counterclaim is denied, as explained on page 2 at n.3. An initial public redacted version of the Opinion will be entered (some of the citations in the Opinion are to sealed evidence but cannot possibly be properly sealed, so redactions were not applied to those sentences). The parties must file a joint position paper on sealing on 03/21/2018, so that another public version of the Opinion, with as few red