ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., No. 1:2001cv03578 - Document 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons set forth above, ResQNet's motion is denied and a new hearing on the issue of a reasonable royalty will be scheduled to occur within 60 days. The parties are directed to exchange pre-hearing briefs in 45 days and any in limine motions will be returnable in 55 days, subject to any agreement the parties may reach on a revised schedule. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/9/2010) (jpo)

Download PDF
IIï½¾ ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc. ＭＧＮ Doc. 279 USDCSDNY DOCUMENT ï¼¡ï½¾ï½ ï½ ï½ ï½ ï½ ï½ ï½ ï¼ºï½ ï¼¬ï½ ï¼  p ｲｾＬ＠ II.! fL _ , . , _ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK I.) ( ' J ,. j LDAfE FILbD: ｾ＠ l!:;::. : ' .".. :;:- -x RESQNET.COM, INC., t 11 Ii l5 FILED Plaintiff, 01 Civ. 3578 (RWS) - against MEMORANDUM OPINION LANSA, INC., Defendant. ---------- -------x Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff ResQNet.com, Inc. ("ResQNet entry of a damages award and final judgment infringement action l ll ) has moved this patent following the Federal rcuit's decision vacating this Court's damages award and remanding for redetermination of damages excluding upon by ResQNet's expert, Dr. Jesse David. reasons, evidence ied For the foregoing motion is denied. A hearing to determine an appropriate royalty rate will be scheduled to occur within 60 days. directed to exchange prehearing briefs The part are 45 days and any in limine motions will be returnable in 55 days. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Prior Proceedings The relevant facts and history of s proceeding are set forth in detail in the Court's earlier Opinions. See Inc. v. Lansa Inc., No. 01 Civ. 3578 (RWS) , 2002 WL 310028011 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2002) i Re Inc., 382 F. Supp. 2d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Lansa .com i ï½ ï½ ï½¥ï½¾ Inc. v. Lansa __ï¼®ï½ ï½£ï½¯ï½­ï½¾ __ I_n_c_.__ v_. Inc., 533 F. Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); 3578(RWS), 2008 WL 4376367 Inc. v ï½¾ . . . Lansa, Inc., No. 01 C (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Familiarity with those Opinions is assumed. On February 5, 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed this Court's rulings on the issues of validity and infringement, reversed the imposition of sanctions against ResQNet, vacated the damages award, and remanded "for a recalculation of a reasonable royalty. 860, 873 II Re (Fed. Cir. 2010). t.com Inc. v. Lansa Inc., 594 F.3d Federal Circuit found that ResQNet failed "to persuade the court with legally sufficient evidence regarding an appropriate reasonable royalty." 872. Id. at Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that ResQNet's expert witness, Dr. David, impermissibly relied on unrelated licenses to inflate his royalty recommendation. 2 Id. On April 121 2010 1 ResQNet filed a motion seeking a remaining recalculation of a reasonable royalty based on evidence in the trial record. Lansa l Inc. ("Lansa ll ) In its opposition l Defendant contended that the Federal Circuit1s mandate requires a new t on damages 1 because the exclusion of the evidence relied upon by Dr. David leaves the Court with no reliable evidence upon which a recalculation of a reasonable royalty could be based. The instant motion was marked fully submitted on May 26 1 2010. A Hearing on Damages Is Required ResQNet has the burden of proof "to persuade the court wi legally sufficient evidence regarding an appropriate reasonably royal after II Id. at 872. The royalty rate entered al was based on the expert testimony of Dr. David. Without Dr. David/s testimony, a hearing on damages is required, at which time ResQNet and Lansa may submit relevant and reliable evidence on the issue of a reasonable royalty. 3 ----" " ... ＭＢｾ .." . ｾ＠ Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, ResQNet's motion is denied and a new hearing on the issue of a reasonable royalty will be scheduled to occur within 60 days. The parties are directed to exchange prehearing briefs in 45 days and any in limine motions will be returnable in 55 days, subject to any agreement the parties may reach on a revised schedule. It is so ordered. New York, NY August 2010 q, 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.