 |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Date: 06/19/08
All claims and counterclaims asserted by MAN Roland Inc. against Morgan & Finnegan’s client Heidelberger Drucksmaschinen AG in the litigation Goss International Americas, Inc. v. MAN Roland Inc. et al., No. 03-CV-513-SM (D.N.H.) have now been dismissed. MAN Roland was represented in the matter by both Crowell & Moring and Cohen, Pontani, Lieberman & Pavane.
The case involved the assertion of three patents by Goss (represented by Kenyon & Kenyon) against MAN Roland relating to web offset printing presses. Goss is the successor to Heidelberger’s former subsidiary, Heidelberg Web Systems, Inc. Heidelberger’s involvement in the case dates to January 2005, when MAN Roland asserted eleven antitrust counterclaims against Heidelberger and Goss based on alleged violations of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.
Morgan & Finnegan’s successful efforts to defeat the antitrust claims began immediately, and resulted in the seriatim dismissal of all claims by way of motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, without the need for a trial. On November 8, 2005, Judge McAuliffe granted Heidelberger’s motion to dismiss MAN Roland’s Clayton Act Section 7 counterclaim, which was based on the allegedly anticompetitive acquisition of Heidelberger’s subsidiary by Goss in August 2004. Morgan & Finnegan argued, and the Court agreed, that regardless of the alleged merits of the unlawful merger claim, since Heidelberger was the selling party, not the acquiring party, Section 7 could not possibly apply.
Next, on June 2, 2006, the Court granted Heidelberger’s motion for summary judgment on the merits of MAN Roland’s Walker Process antitrust claims based on allegations of fraud in the procurement of the patents originally applied for by Heidelberger and now asserted by Goss. The Court dismissed MAN Roland’s multiple theories of fraud based on the alleged concealment of material information. After a fact-intensive review of the parties’ arguments, the Court disposed of all of these claims, and commented that all that remained were MAN Roland’s Walker Process fraud and sham litigation claims based on the circumstances of the abandonment and revival of one of the ancestor applications of the asserted patents, and noted that the sham litigation claim in particular was “hanging by the proverbial thread.”
On March 12, 2007, after Morgan & Finnegan filed yet another motion for summary judgment, the Court dismissed the remaining claims, finding that the alleged improper conduct was immaterial to the patentability of the asserted patents, and noting that all the claims against Heidelberger had been resolved. The recent dismissal formally ended Heidelberger’s involvement in the case and eliminated any possibility of appeal.
The Morgan & Finnegan attorneys who represented Heidelberger were John F. Sweeney, Seth J. Atlas, Steven F. Meyer, Steven M. Purdy and Sean E. Jackson.
Related Attorneys:
John F. Sweeney,
Seth J. Atlas,
Steven F. Meyer,
Steven M. Purdy,
Sean E. Jackson
|
| |
|
|
|
Printable Version
