Placeholder image
”Ninestar
”Ninestar
”Speed
Nubeprint
Subscribe Masthead
”Katun
”Biuromax
Remanexpo Sticky Ad
Remanexpo Sticky Ad

Static Control receives mixed results in Aster case

February 21, 2018

In a new turn of events in the well-documented legal dispute between the two companies, Static Control’s motion to dismiss Aster’s claims has been only partly granted.

In new court documents viewed by The Recycler, the United States District Court in the Central District of California has partially granted a motion by Static Control Components, Inc. to dismiss Aster’s counterclaims, but has denied Static’s motion to strike Aster’s Affirmative Defences.

Static had originally filed the motion on 9 November 2017, seeking “to dismiss all six of Aster’s counterclaims for patent noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability due to fraud and/or inequitable conduct” and “to strike Aster’s tenth and eleventh affirmative defences for unenforceability due to fraud and/or inequitable conduct.”

Because Aster’s allegations of patent noninfringement were deemed by the Court to be “sparse”, the Court took the decision to dismiss without prejudice the company’s first, second, third and fourth counterclaims for patent nonfringement and patent invalidity, but said that Aster has “sufficiently pled the materiality of its inequitable conduct counterclaims and affirmative defences.”

As a result, the Court denied Static Control’s motion “to dismiss Aster’s fifth and sixth counterclaims for unenforceability”, and denied Static’s motion “to strike Aster’s tenth and eleventh affirmative defences for unenforceability.”

The papers concluded by stating that the plaintiff could file “second amended counterclaims” with a deadline of 26 February 2018.

Categories : Around the Industry

Tags :

Leave a Reply