BORTEX INDUSTRY COMPANY LIMITED v. FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS, INC.

Filing 99

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. NO. 69 ), IS GRANTED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF FOD. A STATUS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REGARDING THE EQUITABLE RELIEF HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR 12/11/2013, AT 12:30 PM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 12/2/2013. 12/2/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BORTEX INDUSTRY COMPANY
LIMITED,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS, INC.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-4228

ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2013, upon consideration of “Defendant Fiber
Optic Designs, Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions” (Doc. No. 69), for the reasons stated in the
accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED,
such that:
1. Bortex’s claims of invalidity, unenforceability and non-infringement1 of U.S. Patent No.
7,220,022 and its affirmative defenses are stricken from its pleadings with prejudice.
2. Judgment is entered in favor of FOD.
3. Bortex and the law firm of Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, jointly and severally, shall pay
FOD’s attorneys’ fees associated with bringing FOD’s motion for sanctions. FOD will
submit its invoices for such expenses and costs by January 6, 2014. Any objection to the
fees sought by FOD may be filed by Bortex on or before January 20, 2014.
4. Based upon Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2013 WL 6050986 (Fed. Cir.
Nov. 18, 2013) (“Apple III”) and the current state of the record, the Court is of the view
We note that an expert report prepared by Bortex’s expert, Roger D. Corneliussen,
acknowledges that the two accused Bortex products would infringe claim 69 of the ‘022 patent,
assuming the patent was found to be valid. (Resp. to Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Stamoulis Decl., Doc.
No. 71, Ex. D, pp. 2, 14-15.) Counsel for Bortex acknowledged that Bortex’s products would
infringe claim 69 if the patent is valid. (June 12, 2013 Hrg. Tr., p. 112.)
1

1

that there is not sufficient evidence to grant a preliminary or permanent injunction.
Therefore, a hearing on equitable relief will be scheduled at a later date.
5. A status telephone conference regarding the equitable relief hearing is scheduled for
Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 12:30 p.m.

Counsel for FOD shall initiate the

conference call with counsel for Bortex prior to calling Chambers.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
______________________________
Mitchell S. Goldberg, J.

2