Volume 48, Issue 7- July 2013
Sage and View are Referred to Mediation in Patent Infringement Case
A patent-infringement suit filed by Sage Electrochromics against View Inc. has been sent to mediation by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The deadline is October 15.
Sage filed the suit against View (formerly Soladigm) in December, alleging that it has infringed on two of its patents related to dynamic glass.
Meanwhile, View has filed a second amended answer to Sage’s complaint and a counterclaim in the suit. In its answer, View claims that Sage’s U.S. patent, No. 5,724,177 (the ‘177 patent), titled “Electrochromic Devices and Methods,” is not valid—and denies that it infringed upon it, based on this claim.
Similarly, View alleges that U.S. Patent No. 7,372,610 (the ‘610 patent)—which it also is accused of infringing upon—is invalid as well. The ‘610 patent also is titled “Electrochromic Devices and Methods,” according to the complaint.
The company is seeking an injunction to stop the alleged patent infringement, a judgment declaring that the ‘177 and ‘610 patents are not valid, damages and court costs.
At press time, Sage had not yet responded to the May 29 answer and counterclaim.
Judge Denies AGC Request for Settlement Terms
A judge has denied a request that would have compelled window manufacturer Jeld-Wen Inc. to reveal the terms of a confidential settlement agreement between the window manufacturing firm and one of the four North American glass manufacturers it was suing for alleged collusion and price-fixing.
The legal wrangling is the latest development in an ongoing dispute that stems from an antitrust suit Jeld-Wen filed against four North American glass manufacturers in March 2011, alleging their collusion in an attempt to fix prices of flat glass sold in the U.S. from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006. The defendants in the suit first filed included AGC Flat Glass North America (AGC), Guardian Industries, Pilkington North America and PPG Industries.
PPG later sued Jeld-Wen in May 2012, claiming breach of license, only for the case to be dismissed with prejudice shortly afterwards.
AGC had contended that the remaining defendants had an inherent right to know the terms of Jeld-Wen’s settlement with PPG. AGC officials claimed there might be potential bias by PPG witnesses who might testify when the case goes to trial in Oregon.
The judge, however, didn’t find their argument compelling, writing that “broad assertions, without more, are insufficient to obtain discovery of a confidential release.”