Gregory Moneta Sleet
Judge Sleet no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, Honeywell’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of literal infringement of Claim 4 of the '194 patent is denied.”
“Therefore, Honeywell’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on damages is denied.”
“Accordingly, the jury’s finding that the Bouncenette 3 literally infringes claim 36 must be overturned.”
“Safety 1st has utterly failed to show that the jury failed to reach the only reasonable conclusion. As such, its motion for JMOL in this regard is denied.”
“The court, therefore, will deny Creo’s motion for summary judgment on this ground.”
“Further, the court declines to award Creo reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
“Accordingly, Merck’s motion to dismiss (D.I.15) is granted as Apotex has failed to establish the existence of an actual case or controversy under the current state of the law.”
“Baxter’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of indefiniteness (D.I. 230) is DENIED.”
“Summary judgment in favor of Tale-cris that the asserted claims of the '191 patent are not indefinite is GRANTED.”
“Martek’s renewed JMOL motion regarding literal infringement of the '281 patent is granted”
“Lonza’s renewed JMOL motion that the '281 patent is not infringed by Lonza’s Process No. 2 and not willfully infringed is denied”
“Lonza’s renewed JMOL motion regarding lack of enablement of the '567 patent is granted”
“Cisco’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (D.I. 375) is DENIED in all respects.”
“Cisco’s Motion for a New Trial on Willful Infringement Pursuant to Rule 59(a) (D.I. 373) is DENIED.”
“Telcordia’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction or, in the Alternative, for an Order Requiring Cisco to Pay a Market-Rate Royalty (D.I. 366) is DENIED.”
“Telcordia’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and/or the Court’s Inherent Equitable Authority (D.I. 371) is DENIED.”
“1. The patents-in-suit are invalid as obvious in light of the prior art.”
“2. An award for attorneys’ fees and costs is not warranted in this case.”
“(1) the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not invalid due to obviousness; (2) the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not invalid due to anticipation”
“For the reasons discussed above, the court will grant Facebook’s Motion to Transfer (D.I. 18) this action to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).”
“The court concludes that the asserted claims of the ’582 patent are not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
“The Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (D.I. 51) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No case-level docket sample is available, so this profile makes no claim about caseload mix or case duration.
A historical record
Judge Sleet no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.