Filed: Nov. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER JED S. RAKOFF , District Judge . On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiff to explain in technical detail why, notwithstanding defendants' representations, defendants are in plaintiff's view not complying with the injunction. ECF No. 282. Plaintiff has submitted its brief, ECF No. 287, and defendants their response, ECF No. 292. Based on the expert report submitted by defendants, ECF No. 293, Exh. A, the Court is tentatively of the view that defendants' redesigned devices are n
Summary: ORDER JED S. RAKOFF , District Judge . On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiff to explain in technical detail why, notwithstanding defendants' representations, defendants are in plaintiff's view not complying with the injunction. ECF No. 282. Plaintiff has submitted its brief, ECF No. 287, and defendants their response, ECF No. 292. Based on the expert report submitted by defendants, ECF No. 293, Exh. A, the Court is tentatively of the view that defendants' redesigned devices are no..
More
ORDER
JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
On October 16, 2019, the Court ordered plaintiff to explain in technical detail why, notwithstanding defendants' representations, defendants are in plaintiff's view not complying with the injunction. ECF No. 282. Plaintiff has submitted its brief, ECF No. 287, and defendants their response, ECF No. 292. Based on the expert report submitted by defendants, ECF No. 293, Exh. A, the Court is tentatively of the view that defendants' redesigned devices are no longer infringing. The Court, however, grants plaintiff leave to submit a competing expert report by November 27, 2019. If plaintiff does not submit such a report, the Court will lift the injunction as to the infringing devices.
SO ORDERED.
