Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the defendants, Hangzhou Langhong Technology Co., Ltd. and Langhong Technology USA Inc., moved to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s experts on infringement and damages. The district court had previously issued a scheduling order setting March 26, 2014 as the deadline for the parties to designate their experts and to make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

As explained by the district court, Rule 26(a)(2) requires that the expert’s report must contain, inter alia, a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). The district court then found that “[t]he report prepared by Rogers provides virtually none of the information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff’s response to the motion asserts as an excuse for noncompliance lack of sufficient discovery before Rogers prepared his report for him to have the information he would need to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B). After a thorough review of the material provided by the parties, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff’s excuse for noncompliance with the scheduling order as to Rogers has merit. Plaintiff had ample time before Rogers prepared and submitted his report for the collection of whatever information it needed for Rogers to provide the information in his report required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 16, 2014, the district court entered Judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff Global Traffic Technologies, LLC (“GTT”) in the amount of $5,052,118, enhanced damages in the amount of $2,526,059, and prejudgment interest in the amount of $923,965, plus $1,384.14 for each day after October 31, 2013. Defendants Morgan and KME requested that the district court stay execution of judgment and waive the supersedeas bond requirement. Defendant STC requested that the district court stay execution of judgment with an authorized bond of $100,000, together with pending patent applications in the field of traffic signal preemption.

As the district court explained, “[a]n appellant may obtain a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal when an appellant posts a supersedeas bond, “in the full amount of the judgment plus interests, costs, and damages for delay.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 62(d); Corporate Comm’n of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Money Ctrs. of Am., Inc., No. 12-1015, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176796, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2013) (citing New Access Commc’ns LLC v. Qwest Corp., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1138 (D. Minn. 2005) (Tunheim, J.)). The Court maintains the discretion, however, to waive the bond requirement and stay enforcement of the judgment without a bond.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The ALJ terminated the ITC investigation upon granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment for lack of domestic industry, finding that the complainant’s (a licensing entity) patent-related activities were solely revenue-driven rather than production driven. Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-897 (ITC July 30, 2014, Order) (Lord, ALJ). This distinction was key to the ALJ’s ruling.

To satisfy the so-called “economic prong” of the domestic industry requirement under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3), a complainant must show that an industry in the United States exists with respect to the articles protected by the asserted patent in the form of:

(A) significant investment in plant and equipment;

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Plaintiff Hill-Rom Company, Inc. (“Hill-Rom”) filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against General Electric Company (“GE”). The district court began its discussion by noting that “[t]he Federal Circuit has said that preliminary injunctions are a “drastic and extraordinary remedy” that should not routinely be used. Nat’l Steel Car. Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Rv., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There are four factors to consider when determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case: 1) likelihood of success on the merits; 2) irreparable harm; 3) the balance of hardships; and 4) the public interest. Celsis In Vitro. Inc. v. CellzDirect. Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2012).”

The district court then focused on the irreparable harm factor. “The most salient of the factors in the present case is the second, concerning irreparable harm. The Court FINDS that the Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing that., without a preliminary injunction, they will suffer irreparable harm. General Electric Company (“GE”) is a very large and well established corporation; any harm that Hill-Rom may suffer from GE manufacturing and selling its AgileTrac Hand Hygiene System (“AgileTrac”) can be quantified and the Plaintiffs will be able to be made whole. There is no question that the Plaintiffs will be able to collect on a judgment, should they win one.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Fleet Engineers, Inc. (“Fleet”) develops, manufactures, and sells after-market products for the trucking industry. Defendant Tarun Surti, the president of Mudguard Technologies, LLC (“Mudguard”), owns a mud flap patent on which this lawsuit is focused. Fleet filed a complaint which asserted three claims: (1) a request for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, (2) a request for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, and (3) tortious interference with a business relationship. Defendants answered the complaint and filed three counterclaims: (1) patent infringement, (2) breach of contract, and (3) misappropriation of trade secrets.

After the Court held a claim construction hearing, counsel for the defendants requested leave to withdraw from the lawsuit. On September 24, 2013, the Court granted the motion and ordered the defendants to retain new counsel within 30 days. Defendants requested an extension until December 20. On October 25, 2013, this Court gave Defendants an additional 28 days to find new counsel, extending the deadline to November 25, 2013. On November 22, Defendants again requested additional time to hire counsel, which the district court granted but warned Defendants that if counsel did not enter an appearance by December 20, default would enter against Mudguard.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action brought by plaintiff Trustees of Boston University (“BU”) , BU alleged that defendants infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738 (the “‘738 Patent”), which pertains to light emitting diodes (“LEDs”). BU moved for sanctions against Defendants and their counsel for overdesignating documents as “Confidential-Outside Counsel Eyes Only.”

After BU served document requests for emails, Defendants ran search terms that produced over 3.5 million pages of emails. The Defendants then designated every document of that production as Outside Counsel Only, but the Defendants did not review each document to determine whether it in fact contained confidential information. As explained by the district court, “[b]ecause there was not enough time to review each document and meet [the 30-day] deadline, Defendants reviewed the documents quickly and determined that the emails generally met the requirement of the Global Protective Order, and marked them “CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL EYES ONLY.”‘
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The amended complaint filed by Gene Neal and Kennieth Neal alleged claims for patent infringement and violations of California state law for unfair competition and false advertising. The Defendants, pursuant to Rule 26(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sought “an Order regarding the handling of discovery concerning Plaintiffs’ pre-filing investigation of Defendants’ products which Plaintiffs allege the asserted patents (see, e.g., Doc. No. 34 ¶ 17). The parties were unable to reach an agreement concerning the handling of discovery concerning Plaintiffs’ pre-filing investigation after numerous meet and confers and exchange of correspondence. Instead of rushing to the Court to file a motion to compel, Defendants’ proposal strikes the right balance between discovery of this relevant information and avoidance of unnecessary litigation costs and therefore Defendants believe that the Court should enter ” an appropriate order.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Defendant Lighthouse Photonics Corporation’s (“Lighthouse”) moved to reconsider the Court’s Claim Construction Order. Lighthouse argued three reasons for reconsideration: “first, Newport withheld discovery regarding its relevant prior art patents; second, a recent Supreme Court decision constitutes an intervening change in the law; and third, the Court adopted a construction that had not been advanced by either party until the reply briefing.”

The district court, turning to the first basis for the motion to reconsider, stated: “There has been no shortage of sniping and finger-pointing in this case, and the briefing on this Motion is no exception. The parties vigorously dispute whether Newport withheld discovery regarding its prior art patents: No. 4,756,003 (“‘003 Patent”) and No. 5,410,559 (“‘559 Patent”). The Court finds no need to wade into the quagmire over who withheld what, because it exercises its “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke” interlocutory decisions. See Martin, 226 F.3d at 1048-49. Specifically, the Court finds that the presentation of two related patents, which were allegedly withheld by Newport, constitutes good cause to reconsider the May 7, 2014 claim construction order.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Boku, Inc. (“Boku”) filed a CBM petition with the PTAB seeking review of the patentability of Plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 7,273,168 (the “‘168 patent”). The petition challenged all claims of the ‘168 patent on grounds that they are indefinite, or anticipated by or rendered obvious by one or more of four prior art references not considered by the Patent Office during prosecution of the patent -in-suit.

Boku moved to stay the litigation pending the CBM review based on Section 18(b) of the America Invents Act (“AIA”). As explained by the district court, this statute requires the court to weigh four factors when determining whether to stay litigation pending CBM review, including (1) whether a stay, or denial thereof, will simplify issues and streamline the trial, (2) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set, (3) whether a stay, or denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear tactical advantage for the moving party, and (4) whether a stay, or denial thereof, will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and the court.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Digitech Image Technologies (“Digitech”) asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415, directed to the generation and use of device profiles for digital image processing system against numerous defendants, including Xerox and Fujifilm Corporation. Digitech appealed the district court’s finding on summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. Specifically, Digitech argued that the district court erred in finding (1) that the device profile claims are directed to a collection of data that lacks tangible or physical properties and (2) that the asserted method claims encompass an abstract idea not tied to a specific machine or apparatus. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.

The ‘415 patent was aimed at reducing distortion of an image’s color and spatial properties caused by imaging devices (e.g. digital cameras, TVs, printers) due to the fact that such devices differ in the range of colors and spatial information that they utilize. According to the court, independent claims 1 and 26 described a device profile as “a collection of information; specifically, a description of a device dependent transformation of spatial and color information”:

1. A device profile for describing properties of a device in a digital image reproduction system to capture, transform or render an image, said device profile comprising:

Continue reading