Mar 13 2007
IRIDEX Corporation announced today that the Hon. Catherine Perry, United States District Judge, has now ruled on all outstanding summary motions in its patent infringement suit against Synergetics USA, Inc.
The trial is set to start on April 16, 2007 and will cover only four remaining issues. The jury will decide the amount of damages caused by Synergetics' infringement, whether Synergetics' infringement was willful, and whether IRIDEX's patent is invalid for obviousness. The Court will decide whether IRIDEX's right to recover damages for Synergetics' infringement is limited by the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel.
The Court ruled yesterday that IRIDEX is entitled to summary judgment on each of Synergetics' non-patent counterclaims of false advertising, defamation, and injurious falsehood. The undisputed evidence showed that statements IRIDEX made to customers and the FDA were true. In her ruling, the Judge cited that Synergetics' own witnesses had admitted under oath that unintended laser emissions could take place with the Synergetics adapter and this would indeed be a safety hazard. The FDA also agreed that unintended laser emissions could occur and pose a safety hazard. This puts to rest Synergetics' past claims that damages for these counterclaims would exceed Synergetics' potential liability for infringement.
Additionally, the Court granted IRIDEX's motion to compel the production of additional Synergetics documents that Synergetics had asserted were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court also allowed Synergetics to withdraw its recent motion to add antitrust counterclaims to the case, and denied Synergetics' motion to take additional discovery.
On Friday, March 9, 2007, the Court granted in part IRIDEX's motion for summary judgment of validity. IRIDEX was granted judgment as a matter of law on Synergetics' defenses under the written description and enablement requirements. The Court also concluded that the undisputed evidence shows that the Laserscope patent does not contain all of the elements of the patent in suit, so IRIDEX's patent is not invalid for anticipation. Synergetics' motion for summary judgment of invalidity was denied.