GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Technical Consumer Products, Inc.

Filing 116

Order of Case Dismissal. Both parties remain under an obligation to abide by the duties imposed under the Federal and Local Rules governing record keeping in the context of litigation. See Order for complete details. Judge John R. Adams on 09/14/2015. (M,TL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC,

Plaintiff,
vs.
Technical Consumer Products, Inc.,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:12 CV 3127

JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the decisions entered by Judge Polster in GE
Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of America, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-3131 (N.D. Ohio); GE
Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lighting Science Group Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-3132 (N.D. Ohio);
GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Feit Electric Company, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-3134 (N.D. Ohio);
and GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. MSI, LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-3136 (N.D. Ohio) invalidating
the ‘999 and ‘864 patents that are the bases of the action herein. Defendant, Technical Consumer
Products, Inc., asserts, and Plaintiff, GE Lighting Solutions, LLC (“GE”), acknowledges, the
preclusive effect of the invalidity determination pursuant to Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc.
v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (1971)1 and Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 170 F.3d. 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999)2. GE requests that this Court

1

In which the Supreme Court overrruled Triplett v. Lowell in part finding that issue preclusion or “collateral
estoppel” is permitted in the context of patent infringement suits “once it is determined that the issue in both actions
[is] identical” and the entity asserting collateral estoppel faces “a charge of infringement of a patent that has once
been declared invalid” whether or not the entity seeking the protection of the prior determination was a party to
action that resulted in the invalidity finding. Id. at 347 and 350.
2
In which the Federal Circuit, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Blonder-Tongue, summarized the estoppel
principle: “ ‘once the claims of a patent are held invalid in a suit involving one alleged infringer, an unrelated party
who is sued for infringement of those claims may reap the benefits of the invalidity decision under the principles of
collateral estoppel.’ (internal citation omitted) Id. at 1379 citing Mendenhall v. Barber-Green Co., 26 F.3d 1573
(Fed. Cir. 1994).

1

enter judgment forthwith so that this action can be included in the consolidated appeal of Judge
Polster’s decisions. Accordingly the matter is DISMISSED.
In addition to a final appealable order, GE also seeks an order instructing Technical
Consumer Products, Inc. to retain all documents “within GE’s understanding of the scope of
GE’s discovery requests.” (Brief in Response to the Court’s August 14, 2015 Order, 2.) In
response Technical Consumer Products, Inc. objects that it would be impossible for the Court to
enter an order based on GE’s understanding, and states that it continues to maintain material
relevant to the matter. To the extent that GE seeks an order based on the party’s own
interpretation of discovery obligations that motion is DENIED. Both parties remain under an
obligation to abide by the duties imposed under the Federal and Local Rules governing record
keeping in the context of litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

John R. Adams
_________________________________
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Dated: September 14, 2015

2