Published on:

by

Potter Voice filed a patent infringement action against Apple, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,729,659 (the ‘659 patent) through Apple products containing Siri. In 2010, Apple acquired a corporation called Siri, Inc., which in 2007 “spun off” from SRI International, the company that invented the Siri product now used on Apple’s iPhone 4S and other Apple products.

As part of its patent infringement action, Potter Voice alleged that Apple willfully infringed the ‘659 patent. In a motion to dismiss, Apple disputed whether the allegations in the complaint adequately pled Apple’s knowledge of the ‘659 patent.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Protegrity Corporation (“Protegrity”) filed a patent infringement action against Voltage Security, Inc. (“Voltage”)over patents that allegedly cover methods, systems and apparatuses for encrypting electronic data. Protegrity asserted that its patents are infringed by products sold by Voltage and it sought lost profits as damages. Voltage moved for summary judgment on the issue of lost profits arguing that even if infringement could be established, Protegrity could not sustain its burden of proving that it has lost sales to Voltage because its expert failed to address whether there were non-infringing alternatives available in the market.

In response to the motion, Protegrity sought additional discovery in order to postpone consideration of the motion. As explained by the district court, “Protegrity seeks to postpone consideration of Voltage’s motion for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) pending a deposition of Voltage on issues relating to lost profits. Voltage opposes Protegrity’s request for a postponement on the grounds that Protegrity has not identified the information it hopes to obtain, nor shown how the information will raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding Protegrity’s claim for lost profits.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. (“Unisone”) filed a patent infringement action against Tracelink, Inc. (“Tracelink”). Tracelink filed a motion to dismiss the claims for indirect (induced and contributory) infringement because Unisone had alleged no facts demonstrating Tracelink “had the intent to cause infringement . . . or that [Defendant] willfully infringed the patent.” Tracelink further asserted that Unisone “does not even allege that [Defendant] had knowledge of the ‘538 patent.” In addition, Tracelink argued that Unisone’s contributory infringement claim failed because Plaintiff had not alleged the necessary facts detailing how the accused product is made or adapted for use in an infringement of the patent-in-suit.

The district court began its analysis of the inducing claim by quoting the relevant statutory language and the standard set out by the Federal Circuit. “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). To state a claim for induced infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the alleged infringer (1) knew of the patent, (2) knowingly induced the infringing acts, and (3) possessed a specific intent to encourage another’s infringement of the patent. DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 2013 WL 444642, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Taser International, Inc. (“Taser’) proceeded to trial on its patent infringement action against Karbon Arms, LLC (“Karbon Arms”). After expert reports and with the trial approaching, Taser filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony Val DiEuliis, one of Karbon Arms’ experts, regarding electrophysiology.

As explained by Taser, Dr. DiEuliis offered opinions on certain limitations of the patent-in-suit (United States Patent 7,800,885), including: “compliance signals of the group differ in intensity of pain compliance,” “compliance signals of the group differ in intensity of skeletal muscle contraction,” and “effective duration.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Flatworld Interactives (“Flatworld”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple Inc. (“Apple”). During the litigation, Apple sought the production of several documents that Flatworld claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege and the spousal privilege.

In particular, Flatworld asserted the attorney-client privilege and the spousal privilege for certain documents. In analyzing the issue, the district court noted that “[c]ommunications that would have been made for a business purpose are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.” See McCaugherty v. Sifferman, 132 F.R.D. 234, 238 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (“No privilege can attach to any communication as to which a business purpose would have served as a sufficient cause, i.e., any communication that would have been made because of a business purpose, even if there had been no perceived additional interest in securing legal advice. Fisher et al. v. United States et al., 425 U.S. 391, 403, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1577, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1975).”). The district court then concluded that one of the email chains at issue constituted a business communication and therefore, was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Otto Bock HealthCare LP (“Otto Bock”) filed a patent infringement against Defendants Össur hf and Össur Americas, Inc. (together, “Össur”). Otto Bock alleged that a number of Össur’s infringed four claims of United States Patent No. 6,726,726 (the ” ‘726 Patent”). Otto Bock moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Össur from infringing the ‘726 Patent, and the Court denied Otto Bock’s, holding that Otto Bock was unlikely to prove that the accused combination of products satisfied the ‘726 Patent’s “means for sealing” and “means for maintaining a vacuum” limitations.

After the preliminary injunction was denied, Össur petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “Patent Office”) to institute an inter partes review of 19 claims of the ‘726 Patent. Össur’s petition asserted that certain claims of the ‘726 Patent are invalid because they would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Össur’s petition did not seek review of two of the four independent claims at issue in the case. Össur’s moved to stay the district court case pending the inter partes review. At time of the motion to stay, the Patent Office had not yet decided whether to institute an inter partes review.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. (“Kimberly-Clark) filed a patent infringement action against First Quality Baby Products, LLC (“First Quality”) over a variety of patents relating to disposable absorbent products, such as diapers and incontinence products, including U.S. Patent No. 5,147,343 (the “Kellenberger Patent”), which relates to an absorbent composite or core for use in disposable absorbent products. As explained by the district court, “[t]he absorbent core consists of a matrix of fibers with superabsorbant polymer (“SAP”) dispersed between the pores of the matrix. An SAP is a chemical compound capable of absorbing ten or more times its own weight in fluid-a useful property for products designed to absorb and retain fluids.”

As one of its defenses, First Quality argued that the Kellenberger Patent was invalid for obviousness. Defendants had previously moved for summary judgment on the of obviousness and had argued in support of that motion that the only feature distinguishing the Kellenberger Patent from the prior art was its use of a new SAP in the absorbent core to replace an older, less effective SAP. “In short, Defendants argued that Plaintiff simply took a new SAP (invented by a third party) and included it in a preexisting diaper design, and that it was obvious to do so. By memorandum issued July 8, 2013, the court denied Defendants’ motion after finding genuine disputes of material fact as to whether it would have been obvious to substitute the new SAP.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In February 2013, Tomita Technologies USA, LLC (“Tomita”) went to trial before a jury against Nintendo Co., Ltd. (“Nintendo”). In March 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Tomita in the amount of $30.2 million, finding that the Nintendo 3DS infringed one of Tomita’s patents. The jury also found that the Tomita patent was not invalid. The district court also ruled that Tomita had not proven that Nintendo willfully infringed the Tomita patent by clear and convincing evidence.

After judgment was entered in favor of Tomita, Nintendo moved to set aside the judgment or, in the alternative, for a remittitur. The district court then awarded a remittitur to Nintendo for half of the damages awarded by the jury, which Tomita accepted.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

As Cassidian Communications, Inc.’s (“Cassidian”) patent infringement case against Microdata GIS, Inc. (“Microdata”) moved toward trial, Cassidian moved to exclude the testimony of defendants’ expert. The motion to exclude was based on the argument that the expert report was fatally flawed in that it calculated a reasonable royalty based on an incorrect hypothetical negotiation date.

The district court found that Mr. Gallagher’s expert report is fatally flawed, in that it calculates reasonable royalty based on an incorrect hypothetical negotiation date in November 2010 – almost two years after the date infringement began in December 2008. See LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 75 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he correct determination of the hypothetical negotiation date is essential for properly assessing damages.” “In general, the date of the hypothetical negotiation is the date that the infringement began.”).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Rembrandt Social Media, LP (“Rembrandt”) filed a patent infringement action against Facebook alleging that Facebook infringed two of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,415,316 (“the ‘316 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,289,362 (“the ‘362 patent”).In 2009, Facebook introduced two new features to its website called BigPipe and Audience Symbol. Rembrandt’s expert admitted that the alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit is because of to the introduction of these two features in 2009. Rembrandt’s expert also admitted that Facebook does not infringe without BigPipe and Audience Symbol features.

As explained by the district court, “BigPipe, introduced in Fall 2009, is a web page acceleration and optimization computer program developed by Facebook to increase the speed at which certain web pages are delivered from Facebook’s servers to the user’s web browser. BigPipe takes a web page and divides it into portions known as “pagelets” using a certain piece of computer code12 to specify each pagelet.” In addition, “Audience Symbol, introduced in June 2009, is a small icon displayed next to stories on various webpages on Facebook’s website. The symbol signifies the third-party users, or “audience,” allowed to view a particular story. Rembrandt alleges that display of Audience Symbol violates both the ‘316 and ‘362 patents.”
Continue reading