SUSAN GARRETSON; and, LORRAINE MARKHAM, individually and in her capacity as trustee of the Bill and Lorraine Markham Exemption Trust and the Lorraine Markham Family Trust, Plaintiffs, v. C.A.

LINKLETTER; THOMAS FEIMAN, in his capacity as co-trustee of the Irvin S. and Ida Mae Atkins Family Trust; ROBERT MILLER, in his capacity as co-trustee of the Irvin S. and Ida Mae Atkins Family Trust; and, MAX CANDIOTTY, in his capacity as co-trustee of the Irvin S. and Ida Mae Atkins Family Trust, Defendants.

The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Pursuant to the Order entering by this Court on July 29 ,th 2019 (ECF No. 250) and with no cause having been shown that final judgment should not enter, judgment hereby enters for the Defendants Hasbro, Inc., Reuben Klamer, Dawn Linkletter Griffin, Sharon Linkletter, Michael Linkletter, Laura Linkletter Rich, Dennis Linkletter, Thomas Feiman (in his capacity as co-trustee of the Irvin S. and Ida Mae Atkins Family Trust), Robert Miller (in his capacity as co-trustee of the Irvin S. and Ida Mae Atkins Family Trust), and Max Candiotty (in his capacity as co-trustee of the Irvin S. and Ida Mae Atkins Family Trust) and against the Plaintiffs Markham Concepts, Inc., Lorraine Markham, and Susan Garretson as to Count III of the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 127).

The remaining counts of the complaint were dismissed by this Court’s July 25 , 2019 Text Order entering th the parties’ Stipulation of Partial Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 249).

455), and the parties’ competing requests for final judgment in a separate document pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 (D.I.

At trial, on March 7, 2019, the Court sustained AngioDynamics’s oral motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, as well as its motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, on the grounds that the claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid, not patent-eligible, not infringed and not willfully infringed.

The Court later issued an opinion elaborating on its findings on the record at trial and stating that any deadline for appeal of the Court’s rulings “shall be calculated from [that] date, April 26, 2019.

449, Memorandum and Order at 1) Earlier, the Court had granted Bard’s motion in limine to bifurcate AngioDynamics’s equitable issues from the main trial.

The parties’ requests for a final judgment in a separate document pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 (D.I.

Essentially, the expert admitted that none of the alleged infringing means of identification were new or original.

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ.

Bard argues that the magistrate judge incorrectly concludes that the matter would need to function to make the port power injectable in order to have patentable weight.

This is most likely due to the fact that Judge Robinson was not asked to decide this issue by the parties, probably because it was a year later that the Praxair court clarified that printed matter is to be determined at the claim construction stage of the proceedings.

The magistrate judge determined that “[t]he record before the court does not reflect a clear and unmistakable prosecution disclaimer by Bard that would substantively alter the scope of the claims.” D.I.

The prosecution history in the present case reveals that Bard filed an amendment to overcome a prior art rejection based on the Fenton reference.

But after two amendments to the complaint and considerable motion practice, the parties tried to the Court (in Los Angeles1 and Rhode Island) Plaintiffs’ third claim for relief, which asks for a declaratory judgment that Markham’s heirs control the Game’s intellectual property.

Plaintiffs lose this turn, however: the facts found below show that the physical creation of the Game’s prototype was done by Markham’s erstwhile employees — Grace Chambers and Leonard Israel — as well as Markham’s wife, Sue, and unnamed parties hired by Markham to furnish finishing touches.

Once completed, Markham and Klamer presented the prototype to Milton Bradley executives, including its vice president, Mel Taft, on or around August 10, 1959, at the famous Chasen’s restaurant in Hollywood, California.

In a letter to Klamer dated August 15, 1963, Markham complained that the Assignment Agreement had been a raw deal, grumbling that his share of the royalties was “ridiculously low” and that Art Linkletter had done little to promote the Game on television.

v. Dumas, 53 F.3d 549, 555 (2d Cir. 1995), “[t]he absence of a fixed salary ... is never conclusive,” Picture Music, 457 F.2d at 1216, and has been found “a rather inexact method of properly rewarding with ownership the party that bears the risk with respect to the work’s success,” Marvel, 726 F.3d at 141.