United States District Court, N.D. New York
Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, DOUGLAS J. NASH, ESQ., JASON C. HALPIN, ESQ., JOHN D. COOK, ESQ., DENIS J. SULLIVAN, ESQ., Syracuse, NY, for the Plaintiff.
DLA Piper LLP, SUSAN N. ACQUISTA, ESQ., JOSEPH P. LAVELLE, ESQ., ANDREW N. STEIN, ESQ., Washington, DC, Harter, Secrest Law Firm, DAVID M. LASCELL, ESQ., ERIKA N.D. STANAT, ESQ., JERAULD E. BRYDGES, ESQ., Rochester, NY, for the defendant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc. commenced this action asserting patent infringement claims against Corning Gilbert Inc. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 9.) Pending are PPC's motion for a preliminary injunction, (Dkt. No. 11), and Corning Gilbert's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), (Dkt. No. 14). For the reasons that follow, both motions are denied.
Both PPC and Corning Gilbert are engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing coaxial cable connectors. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8, 21, 26.) On October 15, 2012, PPC filed two patent applications for a coaxial cable connector, ( id. ¶¶ 12, 16), which were approved and issued to PPC on October 22, 2013 and December 3, 2013, as U.S. Patent No. 8, 562, 366 ("366 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 8, 597, 041 ("041 patent"), respectively, ( id. ¶¶ 13, 17; Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1; Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 2). PPC has not licensed the use of these patents to Corning. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 18.)
PPC alleges that Corning has infringed the patents in suit by "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing coaxial cable connectors, " specifically Corning's UltraShield series connectors. ( Id. ¶¶ 21, 26.) PPC alleges that "[Corning]'s acts of infringement cause PPC irreparable harm and damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including lost sales, lost profits, lost sales opportunities, and loss of goodwill." ( Id. ¶¶ 22, 27.)
B. Procedural History
The instant case, involving the alleged infringement of the 366 and 041 patents, was commenced on December 3, 2013. (Am. Compl.) At the time this action was commenced, PPC had already commenced another patent infringement action against Corning, which remains pending. (Dkt. No. 15, 5:12-cv-911.) In that earlier-filed case, PPC alleges that Corning's manufacture, sale, and importation of its UltraShield coaxial cable connectors infringes on different PPC patents from the ones involved in this lawsuit, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 192, 237 ("237 patent") and 8, 287, 320 ("320 patent"). ( Id. ¶¶ 1, 22, 27.)
III. Standards of Review
A. Motion to Dismiss
The standard of review under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is well settled and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard, the court refers the parties to its prior decision in Ellis v. Cohen & ...