July 2015 Archives

District Court Excludes Plaintiff's Infringement Expert for Conflict of Interest

July 29, 2015

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC ("Mobile") filed a patent infringement action against LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. ("LG"). As trial approached, LG filed a motion to disqualify Mobile's infringement expert, Dr. Bims, on the grounds of conflict of interest arising from his retention by LG to serve as its expert in connection with two ITC proceedings in 2011-2012.

LG asserted that the ITC proceedings related to the same products accused by Mobile in this case. Mobile responded by arguing that Dr. Bims' contract with LG expired in February 2015, before his retention by Mobile in March 2015 and that the subject of his work during the ITC proceedings did not relate to his current work for Mobile in this case.

Continue reading "District Court Excludes Plaintiff's Infringement Expert for Conflict of Interest" »

District Court Stays Case Pending Petition for Writ Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court

July 27, 2015

After the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court, the defendant filed a motion to stay the case pending the United States Supreme Court's review of the petition for writ of certiorari. As explained by the district court, "[t]his case for patent infringement is back in this court on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp., 773 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The question before the court is whether the case should be stayed while defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari is pending before the Supreme Court."

Continue reading "District Court Stays Case Pending Petition for Writ Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court" »

District Court Strikes "Shotgun Complaint" That Incorporated Allegations by Reference in Each Count

July 21, 2015

Lanard Toys Limited ("Lanard") filed a patent infringement action against Toys "R" US. Lanard subsequently filed a four-count Amended Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury, both of which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. After the amend complaint was filed, the case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida.

Continue reading "District Court Strikes "Shotgun Complaint" That Incorporated Allegations by Reference in Each Count" »

Smartflash v. Apple: After $500M Verdict, District Court Grants New Trial on Damages Based on Improper Use of Entire Market Value Jury Instruction

July 20, 2015

After a jury returned a verdict against Apple, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The district court subsequently notified the parties pursuant to Rule 59(d) that it was considering granting a motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in Apple's original motion.

During the trial and apparently at Apple's request, the district court instructed the jury on the entire market value rule. Smartflash had argued that it did not employ the entire market value rule at trial and instead employed an apportionment analysis.

Continue reading "Smartflash v. Apple: After $500M Verdict, District Court Grants New Trial on Damages Based on Improper Use of Entire Market Value Jury Instruction" »

District Court Lifts Stay after PTAB Confirms Eight Claims Even Though Defendant Planned to Appeal to the Federal Circuit

July 14, 2015

The district court had previously granted Defendant Respironics, Inc.'s
("Respironics") unopposed motion to stay the patent infringement action filed by the plaintiff, Zoll, pending an inter partes review ("IPR") of the patent-in-suit, on which the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") had instituted review. When Respironics filed the motion to stay, it had assured the district court that the length of the stay would not exceed 18 months. Based on this representation, Zoll withdrew its prior opposition to the requested stay and, based largely on the lack of opposition, the district court granted the stay.

After the completion of the IPR proceeding, the PTO confirmed the patentability of Zoll's patent claims. As explained by the district court, "Zoll now wishes to proceed with the litigation it filed more than 2 1/2 years ago, on December 27, 2012. Oddly, however, and in tension with its prior representations that it was only seeking a stay pending IPR, and that such a stay would not exceed 18 months, Respironics opposes lifting the stay."

Continue reading "District Court Lifts Stay after PTAB Confirms Eight Claims Even Though Defendant Planned to Appeal to the Federal Circuit" »

Court Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Where Plaintiff Merely Alleged That It Had All Substantial Rights to Patent

July 13, 2015

Verify Smart Corp. ("Verify") filed a patent infringement action against Bank of America, N.A. ("BoA"), alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,285,648 ("the '648 Patent"). As part of its complaint, Verify claimed to have all substantial rights through an exclusive license. BoA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), contending that Verify lacked standing.

Continue reading "Court Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Where Plaintiff Merely Alleged That It Had All Substantial Rights to Patent" »

After Transfer, Case Is Stayed Pending IPR Even Though Only Three of Twenty-Two Claims Were at Issue in the IPR

July 8, 2015

Plaintiff ACQIS, LLC ("ACQIS") filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Defendant EMC Corporation ("EMC") had infringed claims in 11 patents owned by ACQIS. Specifically, ACQIS alleged that 20 EMC computer storage products infringe 22 claims from these 11 patents, including EMC products for modular computer systems.

After the Eastern District of Texas transferred the case, EMC moved to stay the case pending Inter Partes Review ("IPR"). The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") has instituted IPRs for 2 of the 11 patents-in-suit, involving 3 of the 22 claims asserted against EMC.

Continue reading "After Transfer, Case Is Stayed Pending IPR Even Though Only Three of Twenty-Two Claims Were at Issue in the IPR" »

District Court Denies Motion to Amend Complaint to Add New Patents Even Though Patents Had Not Issued at Time of Original Filing and New Products Had Become Available on the Market

July 6, 2015

Plaintiff West View Research ("West View") filed five separate patent infringement complaints on the same date against various automobile manufacturers. Each action asserted a combination of patents, all from the same patent family, for a total of eleven asserted patents. The district ourt consolidated the five for purposes of discovery and claim construction.

As part of the Case Management Order, the district court ordered West View to identify no more than seven claims from each patent to assert against the Defendants. For each asserted claim, the district court ordered West View to provide preliminary infringement contentions.

Continue reading "District Court Denies Motion to Amend Complaint to Add New Patents Even Though Patents Had Not Issued at Time of Original Filing and New Products Had Become Available on the Market" »

After Claim Construction, District Court Allows Opposing Experts to Testify to Different Definitions of "Using" At Trial and the Jury Can Decide Who Had the Better Interpretation

July 1, 2015

The parties filed opposing motions against each side's expert witness over a dispute between the parties as to what the word "use" means. In its Markman order, the district court had construed the term "Internet Protocol network" ("an Internet Protocol network," "network utilizing at least one Internet Protocol," and "a network utilizing at least one Internet Protocol") to mean "an untrusted network using any protocol of the Internet Protocol Suite including at least one of IP, TCP/IP, UDP/IP, HTTP, and HTTP/IP. . . ."

Continue reading "After Claim Construction, District Court Allows Opposing Experts to Testify to Different Definitions of "Using" At Trial and the Jury Can Decide Who Had the Better Interpretation" »