Helios Software, LLC, et al. v. Spectorsoft Corporation, C.A. No. 12-81 – LPS, June 5, 2015

Stark, C. J. Defendant’s motion for clarification and reconsideration of a 9/18/14 opinion is granted with respect to damages outside the U.S. and willfulness.  It is denied with respect to denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s motion for costs relating to damages expert is denied.  Defendant’s motion to exclude expert’s supplemental report is denied. Cross-motions to dismiss patents and counterclaims are decided.

Defendant’s motion for clarification clarifies that plaintiff may not seek damages based on sales of accused products outside the United States.  Clarification that willfulness is out of the case with respect to all accused products, and not just a subset, if granted.  With respect to summary judgment,  the court did not misapprehend the record. Instead, there are genuine issues of fact which preclude summary judgment.  The motion for costs relating to expert testimony is not based on a Rule 37 discovery motion but instead on a misapprehension or misapplication of the relevant legal standards, and the sanctions motion is denied.  Defendant’s motion to exclude a supplemental damages report of Scott Weingust is denied.  The report adequately accounts for non-patented features, and any contradictions with previous opinions go to the weight rather than admissibility and can be addressed on cross-examination.  With respect to motions to dismiss, the dispute was whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice after a covenant not to sue on certain patents. Defendant’s counterclaims and defenses are dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.  The covenant does not strip the court of jurisdiction to resolve defendant’s inequitable conduct counterclaim, which is set for trial.