Bleakley Platt & Schmidt LLP

New York

General

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

Cases11

Challenger50%

Patent Owner50%

NPE50%

--

--

Practice Areas

Mech Eng, ManufSemicond., OpticTransport., E-Comm.

Top Attorneys

Patrick J. CoyneNeal S. CohenPeter Kinsella

Elite Ratings

DCTPTABCAFC

Ratings

Please sign up or log in to access the advanced features of
Ex Parte Professional.

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L5

A

PTAB

L5

A

CAFC

L5

A

Analytics

Lawyers

Cases

Ratings Trends

Practice Areas

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
01/18/24	Bell Semiconductor LLC v. Asmedia Technology Inc 1:22-CV-08166 ( S.D. NY )	STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE: NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), by and between the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, that all claims, counterclaims and defenses of each Party against the other are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. Each Party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The stay of this case is lifted for the purposes of the filing of the stipulation of dismissal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to file the stipulation of dismissal and to close this case. Case Stay Lifted. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 1/18/2024) (tg) (Entered: 01/18/2024) STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE: NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), by and between the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, that all claims, counterclaims and defenses of each Party against the other are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. Each Party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The stay of this case is lifted for the purposes of the filing of the stipulation of dismissal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to file the stipulation of dismissal and to close this case. Case Stay Lifted. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 1/18/2024) (tg) (Entered: 01/18/2024)
08/28/23	Bell Semiconductor LLC v. Asmedia Technology Inc 1:22-CV-07307 ( S.D. NY )	JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Chris Schmidt dated 8/28/2023 re: Order Requiring Joint Letter on Status of the Delaware Lawsuit. Document filed by ASMedia Technology, Inc...(Schmidt, Christopher) (Entered: 08/28/2023)
07/26/23	Molnlycke Health Care US LLC v. Greenwood Marketing LLC 7:22-CV-03719 ( S.D. NY )	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy: Telephone Conference held on July 26, 2023. Next Telephone Conference scheduled for October 11, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. Counsel shall call 877-873-8017 and enter access code 4264138 at the time of the conference. (jah) (Entered: 07/26/2023)
06/30/23	Bell Semiconductor LLC v. Asmedia Technology Inc 1:22-CV-09260 ( S.D. NY )	ORDER granting 51 Motion to Stay re: 51 MOTION to Stay Pending Resolution of the Litigation between Plaintiff Bell Semiconductor, LLC and Software Suppliers Synopsis, Inc. and Cadence Design Systems, Inc.. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to stay the case is GRANTED pending resolution of the Delaware Action. Synopsys and Cadence brought the Delaware Action to seek a declaratory judgment that the very Patents at issue in this case are invalid and unenforceable, and that their technology (which ASMedia uses in its semiconductor chips) is not infringing. See Compl., Synopsis Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC, No. 22-CV-1512 (CFC), Dkt. 1 (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2022). Staying this case until the Delaware Action is resolved will allow Plaintiff to confront the manufacturers at the root of this dispute, preserve resources, and avoid conflicting judicial decisions. See Order, Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. ASMedia Technology, Inc., 22-CV-7307 (LGS), Dkt. 86 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2023) (staying a different patent infringement action by Plaintiff pending resolution of the Delaware Action on similar grounds); Order, Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Omnivision Techs., Inc., 8-22-CV-1512 (JAK), Dkt. 71 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2023) (same); cf. Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 909 F.2d 1459, 1463-64 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding an order enjoining a patentholder from proceeding in two customer actions in another district; "litigation... brought by the manufacturer of infringing goods takes precedence over a suit by the patent owner against customers of the manufacturer"). Plaintiff has not shown a risk of prejudice that outweighs the benefits of a stay. If, as Plaintiff insists, the Delaware Action will soon be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, see Pl. Mem. at 3, the stay in this case will be lifted. Moreover, if the Plaintiff prevails in the Delaware Action, it would pave the way to damages from Synospys and Cadence, which have already received indemnification requests from their customers. See Delaware Compl. Paragraph 14. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motion at Docket Entry 51 and to STAY the case. All deadlines are adjourned sine die. Not later than September 1, 2023, and on the first business day of every quarter thereafter, the parties must submit a joint status update to the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/30/2023) (tg) (Entered: 06/30/2023) ORDER granting 51 Motion to Stay re: 51 MOTION to Stay Pending Resolution of the Litigation between Plaintiff Bell Semiconductor, LLC and Software Suppliers Synopsis, Inc. and Cadence Design Systems, Inc.. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to stay the case is GRANTED pending resolution of the Delaware Action. Synopsys and Cadence brought the Delaware Action to seek a declaratory judgment that the very Patents at issue in this case are invalid and unenforceable, and that their technology (which ASMedia uses in its semiconductor chips) is not infringing. See Compl., Synopsis Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC, No. 22-CV-1512 (CFC), Dkt. 1 (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2022). Staying this case until the Delaware Action is resolved will allow Plaintiff to confront the manufacturers at the root of this dispute, preserve resources, and avoid conflicting judicial decisions. See Order, Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. ASMedia Technology, Inc., 22-CV-7307 (LGS), Dkt. 86 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2023) (staying a different patent infringement action by Plaintiff pending resolution of the Delaware Action on similar grounds); Order, Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Omnivision Techs., Inc., 8-22-CV-1512 (JAK), Dkt. 71 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2023) (same); cf. Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 909 F.2d 1459, 1463-64 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding an order enjoining a patentholder from proceeding in two customer actions in another district; "litigation... brought by the manufacturer of infringing goods takes precedence over a suit by the patent owner against customers of the manufacturer"). Plaintiff has not shown a risk of prejudice that outweighs the benefits of a stay. If, as Plaintiff insists, the Delaware Action will soon be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, see Pl. Mem. at 3, the stay in this case will be lifted. Moreover, if the Plaintiff prevails in the Delaware Action, it would pave the way to damages from Synospys and Cadence, which have already received indemnification requests from their customers. See Delaware Compl. Paragraph 14. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the open motion at Docket Entry 51 and to STAY the case. All deadlines are adjourned sine die. Not later than September 1, 2023, and on the first business day of every quarter thereafter, the parties must submit a joint status update to the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 6/30/2023) (tg) (Entered: 06/30/2023)
10/13/22	Skyline Steel LLC v. Pilepro LLC 1:13-CV-08171 ( S.D. NY )	SEALED MATERIALS DISPOSED: Document(s) 391 and 392 were destroyed since the filing party did not retrieve the material(s) within 30 days of the date indicated. The sealed record(s) were destroyed on 10/13/2022..(jus) (Entered: 10/13/2022)
10/13/22	Skyline Steel LLC v. Pilepro LLC 1:13-CV-08171 ( S.D. NY )	SEALED MATERIALS DISPOSED: Document(s) 309, 353 and 488 were destroyed since the filing party did not retrieve the material(s) within 30 days of the date indicated. The sealed record(s) were destroyed on 10/13/2022..(jus) (Entered: 10/13/2022)
10/13/22	Skyline Steel LLC v. Pilepro LLC 1:13-CV-08171 ( S.D. NY )	SEALED MATERIALS DISPOSED: Document(s) 244 were destroyed since the filing party did not retrieve the material(s) within 30 days of the date indicated. The sealed record(s) were destroyed on 10/13/2022..(jus) (Entered: 10/13/2022)
10/13/22	Skyline Steel LLC v. Pilepro LLC 1:13-CV-08171 ( S.D. NY )	SEALED MATERIALS DISPOSED: Document(s) 161, 270 and 325 were destroyed since the filing party did not retrieve the material(s) within 30 days of the date indicated. The sealed record(s) were destroyed on 10/13/2022..(jus) (Entered: 10/13/2022)
08/19/21	Molnlycke Heath Care US LLC v. Purdy 7:20-CV-03755 ( S.D. NY )	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy: Show Cause Hearing held on August 19, 2021. Oral argument heard. (Court Reporter Courtflow) (jah) (Entered: 08/19/2021)