Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JULES J. LEVIN, et al., v. SEPTODONT, INC. : : : : : : :

Civil Action WMN-99-647

MEMORANDUM Before the Court is Defendant Septodont's Motion for Attorney Fees. Paper No. 52. Plaintiffs have moved to strike

Defendant's motion on the ground of untimeliness, and have also opposed the motion on its merits. Paper No. 56. Upon a review

of the motions and the applicable case law, the Court determines that Defendant's motion for fees will be stricken as untimely. This case arose out of a contract for the sale of a patent. On August 18, 2000, this Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the patent that was the subject of the contract was invalid because of the intentional omission in the patent application of one of the inventors. In the order

granting summary judgment, the Court closed the case but did not expressly address the status of a counterclaim that had been filed by Defendant. On August 28, 2000, Plaintiffs filed what Paper No. 42. Because

was essentially a motion to reconsider.

of the uncertainty resulting from the unresolved counterclaim, Plaintiff requested as an alternative remedy in that same pleading, the certification for appeal of the Court's August 18, 1

2000 order.

On November 6, 2000, the Court denied Plaintiff's

motion to reconsider and clarified that Defendant's counterclaim was being dismissed as well. On November 20, 2000, Defendant filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C.

Download Jules J. Levin, et al v SEPTODONT, Inc.pdf

Maryland Law