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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

10-187 - Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
10-187 - Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation
December 8, 2010
PDF | More
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (MKR)
March 22, 2011
PDF | More
ORDER - The Stipulated and Joint Motion for Order Extending Time for Mediation 96 is granted. The court amends its February 18, 2011, Mediation Reference Order 87 as follows: Plaintiff and Defendant Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. are given until no later than April 26, 2011, to utilize the private mediation services of Mr. Michael Warnecke. All other aspects of the Court's previous Order shall remain unchanged. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (KBJ)
April 18, 2011
PDF | More
ORDER - The plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Deposition of Attorney Dennis Thomte 76 is denied. Any objection to this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (KBJ)
May 31, 2011
PDF | More
D. Thalken. (KBJ)ORDER - A Markman hearing will be held before Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon in Courtroom No. 3, Third Floor, Roman L. Hruska, U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on September 1, 2011. Within ten working days following the courts ruling on claim construction, the plaintiff shall initiate a telephone planning conference with all parties and the undersigned magistrate judge in order to schedule this matter to trial. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas
November 29, 2011
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on claim construction (Markman). Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (SMS)
January 6, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - The plaintiff's Motion to Strike New Expert Opinions of Mark Wegner as Untimely Under the Amended Scheduling Order (Filing No. 237) is granted as set forth in this Order. Pursuant to NECivR 72.2 any objection to this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Order. Failure to timely object may constitute a waiver of any objection. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
January 16, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER granting 266 Motion to Extend. The Stipulated and Joint Motion for Extension of Time (Filing No. 266) is granted. The deposition of Melissa Bennis shall be completed on or before February 9, 2015. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (NMW)
February 2, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - Briggs' Motion to Compel Production of Exmark's Patent Infringement Potentials List and Related Documents (Filing No. 255) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this Order. Pursuant to NECivR 72.2 any objection to this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Order. Failure to timely object may constitute a waiver of any objection. The brief in support of any objection shall be filed at the time of filing such objection. Failure to file a brief in support of any objection may be deemed an abandonment of the objection. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
February 6, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on February 6, 2015. Derek Vandenburgh and Joseph W. Winkels represented the plaintiff, Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. (Exmark). Marc A. Cohn represented the defendant, Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC (Briggs). Rebecca D. Ward represented the defendant, Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. The court addressed Exmark's counsel's request for clarification of the court's Order (Filing No. 274) regarding the disclosure of a document identified as 206 in Exmark's Privilege Log. The court requested and Exmark provided by facsimile document 206 for in camera review. After review, the court finds document 206 is Exmark's "Potential Patent Infringements" list. Therefore, as the list is protected under the attorney-client privilege as explained in the court's Order (Filing No. 274), document 206 is privileged. While Exmark is not compelled to produce the list, Exmark may not assert the attorney-client privilege as to underlying facts in the list, or any of the list's iterations, during the upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Exmark's Rule 30(b)(6) deponent should be knowledgeable in the underlying factual content of the list. Exmark's facsimile submission will be separately filed under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
February 9, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - The parties' Stipulated and Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Motions and Opening Brief (Filing No. 278) is granted. Summary judgment motions and opening briefs shall be filed on or before February 17, 2015. All other deadlines shall remain unchanged. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
March 5, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - Schiller's Motion to Compel Reopening of Deposition of Plaintiff's Damages Expert Melissa Bennis (Filing No. 281) is denied. Pursuant to NECivR 72.2 any objection to this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
March 24, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - 1. The parties' stipulation (Filing No.404) is adopted; 2. Defendants Briggs and Schiller's motions relating to the admissibility of the testimony of Mr. Kent Herink, Filing Nos. 343 and 349, are dismissed and termed on the docket; 3. Plaintiff Exmark shall not call Mr. Kent Herink as a witness at trial; 4. Defendant Schiller has withdrawn all aspects of the expert reports of Mr. Sean Suiter with the exception of Mr. Suiter's opinion about the reasonable business standards applicable to purchasers in asset purchase agreements involving intellectual property transfers. Exmark does not agree that Mr. Suiter's testimony on this limited issue is admissible at trial. The admissibility of Mr. Suiter's testimony in this regard will be addressed at trial through voir dire. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (NMW)
July 28, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The defendants' joint motion to exclude the opinions of Melissa Bennis (Filing No. 416) is denied. The defendants' joint motion to exclude the testimony of Paul Strykowski and Garry Busboom (Filing No. 354) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
September 4, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - This matter is before the court on its own motion. Several motions in limine involve the issue of relevance of several categories of evidence (testimony regarding equitable defenses, claims of privilege, rejected defenses of invalidity and noninfringement, and prior art) to the issue of willfulness. In order to clarify the record, the court finds a ruling as a matter of law on the objective prong of the willfulness inquiry is necessary. Accordingly, the court finds as a matter of law that Briggs acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. The evidence presented in connection with the summary judgment motions also establishes that Briggs's defenses, and any reliance thereon, were not reasonable. The court finds as a matter of law that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect those defenses to succeed. Notably, Briggs has asserted attorney-client privilege with respect to the details of its lawyers' involvement and advice in connection with the issue of infringement of the redesigned mowers and it does not rely on advice of counsel in defense of the willfulness allegations in connection with the original designs. It cannot credibly argue that it relied on reasonable defenses to infringement. The issue of Briggs's subjective state-of-mindwhether the objectively-defined risk "was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer" remains for determination by the jury. IT IS SO ORDERED.Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL )
September 4, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Exmark's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Preclude Defendant from Presenting Improper Arguments, Evidence, and Testimony Related to Claim Construction (Filing No. 484) is denied as moot. Exmark's Motion in Limine No. 2 to Preclude Defendant from Presenting Arguments, Evidence, and Testimony Regarding Equitable Defenses (Filing No. 482 is granted. Exmark's Motion in Limine No. 3 to Preclude Defendant from Presenting Arguments, Evidence, and Testimony Regarding Issues Over Which it has Claimed Privilege (Filing No. 485) is granted as set forth above. Exmarks Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Testimony and Argument Regarding Patent Invalidity and to Exclude Irrelevant Prior Art (Filing No. 496) is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice to reassertion at trial Exmark's Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Testimony and Argument Regarding Briggs's Rejected Non-Infringement Argument (Filing No. 498) is granted. Exmark's Motion in Limine No. 6 to Preclude Defendant from Presenting Improper Evidence and Arguments Related to Third Party Mowers (Filing No. 500) is granted. Exmark's Motion in Limine No. 7 to Preclude Defendant from Presenting Evidence and Arguments Related to U.S. Patent No. 6,848,246 to Samejima (Filing No. 502) is denied, without prejudice to reassertion. Exmark's Motion in Limine No. 8 is deferred. Briggs and Stratton Power Products Group, LLC's (hereinafter Brigg's) Motions in Limine Nos. 1 to 14 (Filing No. 491) are denied. Briggs's Motion in Limine Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 9-13 are denied as moot. Briggs's Motion in Limine to Use Depositions at Trial is deferred. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
September 4, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for reconsideration (Filing No. 534) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL )
September 21, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER - The plaintiff shall file a brief addressing the issue of damages for willfulness within 14 days of the date of this order. The defendant shall file a brief addressing the issue of damages for willfulness within 14 days thereafter. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
September 30, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER that Trial Exhibits are due on or before 12/4/15. Pretrial Conference set for 12/18/2015 at 09:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. Jury Trial set for 1/19/2016 before Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (LAC)
October 13, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER granting 608 Request for Transcript (Non-Party). The nonparty petitioner, Rebecca D. Ward, must contact court reporter Sue DeVetter to make arrangements for the preparation and payment of the transcript. The Clerk's Office is directed to mail a copy of this order to the party requesting the transcript. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed as directed)(ADB)
December 18, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER granting 674 Stipulation for Dismissal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count II against Schiller in the First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 14) and all defenses and counterclaims asserted by Schiller in the present action as set forth in Schiller's Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to the First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 57) are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall have any bearing on the currently pending case between Plaintiff Exmark and Defendant Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB)
May 11, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Exmark's Motion in Limine to Preclude Briggs From Presenting New and Untimely Evidence and Arguments Regarding the Prejudice Element of Laches (Filing No. 622) is denied as moot. Defendant Briggs and Stratton Power Products Group, LLC's motion for a judgment of laches (Filing No. 658) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
May 11, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant Briggs and Stratton Power Products Group, LLC's motion for judgment as a matter of law, remittitur, and for a new trial on damages (Filing No. 654) is denied. Defendant Briggs and Stratton Power Products Group, LLC's motion judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on willful infringement (Filing No. 656) is denied. Defendant Briggs and Stratton Power Products Group, LLC's motion for reconsideration (Filing No. 581) of an order on a motion in limine (Filing No. 565) was addressed at trial and is denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/12/2016: # (1) Memorandum and Order with s/ signature) (TCL, ).
May 11, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Exmark's motions for attorney fees and enhanced damages (Filing No. 646) is granted with respect to enhanced damages and denied with respect to attorney fees. A judgment for enhanced damages in the amount of $24,280,330.00 will issue this date. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
April 4, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall proceed according to the schedule and deadlines set forth in the stipulation (Filing No. 709). Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)
April 13, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER granting 713 Stipulation. The Clerk of the Court is directed to release the security posted by Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC on August 18, 2016 [Docket No. 704] and approved by the Court on August 26, 2016 [Docket No. 705];caption shall be amended to reflect Briggs & Stratton Corporation as the sole remaining Defendant in this matter. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB) As the successor-in-interest of Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group LLC, Briggs & Stratton Corporation is substituted in as Defendant in this action pursuant to Rule 25(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; In future filings, the case
May 7, 2018
PDF | More
STRICKEN - ORDER setting response deadline on MOTION to Transfer 715.Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl) Modified on 5/7/2018 to add "stricken" text pursuant to Order 731(TLSS).
June 28, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Exmark's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (Filing No. 752) is granted. The court incorporates the sur-reply attached to Exmark's motion without the need for re-filing. Briggs' Motion to Transfer (Filing No. 715) is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (LKO)
July 19, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that: Defendant Briggs's objections (Filing No. 755) to the Magistrate Judge's order are overruled. The Memorandum and Order of the Magistrate Judge (Filing No. 754) is affirmed. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (TCL)