Meyer Intellectual Properties Limited et al v. Bodum, Inc.

Filing 239

MOTION by Defendant Bodum, Inc. for judgment As A Matter of Law (Renewed) (Rigg, Robert)

Download PDF
Meyer Intellectual Properties Limited et al v. Bodum, Inc. Doc. 239 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MEYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES LIMITED; and MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., Plaintiffs, v. BODUM USA, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT WILLFULLY INFRINGE PLAINTIFF'S PATENTS Defendant Bodum USA, Inc. ("Bodum"), by and through its counsel, Vedder Price P.C., hereby renews its Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law That Defendant Did Not Willfully Infringe Plaintiffs' Patents. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law filed herewith, this Court should grant Bodum's renewed motion and find that Bodum did not willfully infringe Plaintiffs' patents. Judge Milton I. Shadur Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier Civil Action No. 06-CV-6329 Dated: March 9, 2011 David E. Bennett Robert S. Rigg William J. Voller III Vedder Price P.C. 222 North LaSalle Street; Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601-1003 (312) 609-7500 dbennett@vedderprice.com rrigg@vedderprice.com wvoller@vedderprice.com Respectfully submitted, BODUM USA, INC. By: s/Robert S. Rigg/ One of Its Attorneys CHICAGO/#2176775.1 Dockets.Justia.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT WILLFULLY INFRINGE PLAINTIFF'S PATENTS was served by ECF under Local Rule 5.2 upon: Joshua C. Krumholz 10 St. James Avenue, 11th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Email: joshua.krumholz@hklaw.com R. David Donoghue 131 South Dearborn Street, 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Email: david.donoghue@hklaw.com on March 9, 2011. s/Robert S. Rigg/ -2CHICAGO/#2176775.1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?