United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
For Maureen Reddy, Plaintiff, Counter Defendant: Eve Brown, LEAD ATTORNEY, Suffolk University, Boston, MA.
For Lowe's Companies, Inc., Defendant, Counter Claimant: Michael C. Cesarano, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Feldman Gale PA, Miami, FL; Amanda S. Adams, Michael A. Oakes, Ozzie A Farres, Steven L. Wood, PRO HAC VICE, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, DC; Leonard C. Suchyta, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, DC.
For Evolution Lighting, LLC, Defendant: Michael C. Cesarano, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Feldman Gale PA, Miami, FL; David S. Godkin, Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP, Boston, MA.
For Evolution Lighting, LLC, Counter Claimant: Michael C. Cesarano, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Feldman Gale PA, Miami, FL; Andrew A. Caffrey, III, David S. Godkin, Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP, Boston, MA.
WILLIAM G. YOUNG, DISTRICT JUDGE.
This Markman memorandum explains this Court's construction of design patent D677, 423 (the " '423 patent" ) which claims an " ornamental design for a bathroom vanity light shade." U.S. Patent No. D677, 423 (filed Mar. 8, 2012). Compl., Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2. On June 4, 2014, at a Markman hearing, this Court, acting on behalf of Judge Tauro to whom this case was originally drawn, orally construed the patent at bar. Pursuant to the Court's internal procedures, the case was subsequently transferred to Judge Talwani for
all further proceedings. This memorandum details the Court's reasoning.
A. Procedural History
The plaintiff, Maureen Reddy (" Reddy" ), brings suit against Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Evolution Lighting, LLC (collectively, the " Defendants" ), accusing the Defendants of infringing her design patent. Compl. 6. The parties filed preliminary claim construction briefs on April 30, 2014. Defs.' Br. Claim Construction (" Defs.' Opening Br." ), ECF No. 29; Pl.'s Opening Claim Construction Br. (" Pl.'s Opening Br." ), ECF No. 31. The Defendants replied on May 16, 2014. Defs.' Reply Pl.'s Br. Claim Construction (" Defs.' Reply" ), ECF No. 37. Reddy filed her reply brief on May 29, 2014. Pl.'s Reply Defs.' Br. Claim Construction (" Pl.'s Reply" ), ECF No. 38.
This Court held a Markman hearing on June 4, 2014, at which time it adopted the claim construction discussed in this memorandum. See Elec. Clerk's Notes, June 4, 2014, ECF No. 42. The next day, June 5, 2014, this case was transferred to Judge Talwani's session of the Court. Elec. Notice, June 5, 2014, ECF No. 41. Following the Markman hearing and the reassignment, the parties continued to litigate the case in Judge ...