Crane Security Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Rolling Optics AB (14-cv-12428).

Following a trial in which Rolling Optics was found to have willfully induced infringement of several Crane patents, Judge Sorokin ruled on a number of post-trial motions. He denied Rolling Optics 2019 motion for judgment of no inducement and lack of notice as a matter of law, finding the motion a mere rehashing of the motion for summary judgment that was previously denied. He likewise denied Rolling Optics 2019 motion for JMOL that certain claims were anticipated, finding the jury 2019s determination on the credibility of the parties 2019 experts dispositive. Judge Sorokin denied Crane 2019s motion for attorneys fees under 35 USC 285, finding that Rolling Optics 2019 litigation conduct was not exceptional, particularly given that the injunction that would likely result from losing would jeopardize Rolling Optics 2019 very existence. He awarded Crane treble damages, finding that Crane had demonstrated that Rolling Optics had copied their products with extensive knowledge of Crane 2019s patent portfolio and that Rolling Optics took no steps to ensure that they were not infringing valid patent claims 2013 indeed, Rolling Optics continued shipping products into the United States seven months after it had been advised by its legal team to cease doing so. Finally, Judge Sorokin entered a permanent injunction, finding that Rolling Optics was directly competitive to Crane such that continued infringement would result in harms that could not be adequately remedied at law.