American Institute of Physics et al v. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. et al

Filing 255

ORDER Adopting 250 Report and Recommendation; overruling 252 Objections; denying as moot 93 Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 116 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying as moot 153 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 156 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 160 Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; denying as moot 190 Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; denying as moot 222 Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; dismissing with prejudice 41 Amended Complaint. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 08/30/13. (KLL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

American Institute of Physics, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.,

Civil No. 12-528 (RHK/JJK)
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A., and
John Doe Nos. 1-10,
Defendants,
v.
The United States Patent and Trademark
Office,
Intervenor Defendant.

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Objections to United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J.
Keyes’s July 30, 2013 Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de novo review
of the Report and Recommendation, the Objections thereto, and all of the files, records, and
proceedings in this matter. That review satisfies the undersigned that Judge Keyes’s thorough
and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation is fully supported by the factual record before
him and controlling legal principles.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Objections (Doc. No. 252) are OVERRULED;

2.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 250) is ADOPTED;

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment on the Counterclaim of

Intervening Defendant the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Doc. No. 93) is DENIED
AS MOOT;
4.

Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Establishing the

Liability of Defendant Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. for Copyright Infringement
(Doc. No. 116) is DENIED AS MOOT;
5.

Intervenor Defendant The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Motion

for Summary Judgment on its Fair Use Defense and Counterclaim (Doc. No. 153) is DENIED
AS MOOT;
6.

Schwegman’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 156) is GRANTED;

7.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Expert Witness Testimony of Jean-Pierre Dubé

(Doc. No. 160) is DENIED;
8.

Schwegman’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony, Report, and Declaration of

Randall H. Victora (Doc. No. 190) is DENIED AS MOOT;
9.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Douglas Gary

Lichtman (Doc. No. 222) is DENIED AS MOOT; and
10.

This Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 41) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 30, 2013
s/Richard H. Kyle
RICHARD H. KYLE
United States District Judge