Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Protective Order Violations in High-Stakes Patent Litigation Results in Sanctions and Prosecution Bar

In a recent high-stakes patent litigation case, a protective order, filed on November 22, 2022, was put in place to safeguard confidential information during the course of the legal proceedings.  The defendant asserted that the plaintiff’s legal team had struggled to adhere to the protective order’s strict guidelines. The first…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Compel Production of Inventor Emails in Patent Infringement Case

In a recent discovery dispute in a patent infringement case, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce certain inventor emails that were withheld on the basis of the work product doctrine. The key issue was whether the plaintiff demonstrated that the emails, exchanged between…

Updated:

Key Evidentiary Rulings in Acceleration Bay v. Activision

In the ongoing patent infringement case between Acceleration Bay LLC and Activision Blizzard Inc., the district court recently issued an order resolving several important evidentiary disputes between the parties. This order provides guidance on the admissibility of various categories of evidence that will impact the damages case at the upcoming…

Updated:

District Court Sanctions Plaintiff for Failing to Meet and Confer on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

In a recent development in patent litigation, the district court has granted a motion to dismiss counterclaims in a case involving U.S. Patent No. 10,519,668 (“the ‘668 Patent”). The decision sheds light on the importance of adhering to meet and confer obligations, as well as the consequences of non-compliance. Background:…

Updated:

Inmar Brand Solutions, Inc. v. Quotient Technology Inc.: District Court Denies Quotient’s Motion to Dismiss Under Step One of Alice

In the ongoing case of Inmar Brand Solutions, Inc. v. Quotient Technology Inc., the district court was tasked with conducting an analysis under the Supreme Court’s two-step test in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International to determine whether Inmar’s patented coupon-processing system, exclusively licensed from Intelligent Clearing Network, Inc. (ICN),…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion to Compel Documents That Were Clawed Back Finding that Defendant Waived Work Product Protection by Voluntarily Producing the Documents

The crux of this case revolves around a dispute over patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition filed by Nielsen (or Plaintiff) against Hyphametrics (or Defendant). At the heart of the issue in this motion were specific documents – experimental reports. These reports were initially produced by Hyphametrics to…

Updated:

GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.: District Court Denies Netflix’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Third-Party Funding Documents

The legal battle between GoTV Streaming, LLC and Netflix, Inc. continues to unfold, captivating the streaming industry and legal observers alike. In a recent development in the case, the district court issued an order denying Netflix’s motion to compel GoTV Streaming to disclose its third-party funding related documents. This ruling…

Updated:

Discovering the Precise Financial Stake of LLC Plaintiff’s Members and Litigation Funder: Court Rules in Favor of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Disclosure

In the case of Speyside Medical, LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC et al, the district court recently granted the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff, Speyside Medical, to produce information regarding its members and litigation funder. The district court found such information relevant, emphasizing the importance of understanding the precise…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Where Conjoint Consumer Research Survey Was Appropriately Tied to Asserted Patents

In this patent infringement action, defendant Carvana sought to exclude the plaintiff Estech’s expert report and opinions regarding a conjoint survey. Carvana moved to exclude the expert’s opinion asserting that the survey failed to satisfy the reliability requirements of Rule 702 and Daubert. As explained by the district court, Estech…

Updated:

Masimo v. Apple: District Court Excludes Lost Profits Damage Theory for Failure to Disclose

In this patent infringement action, Apple moved to exclude Masimo’s damage theory on lost profits for failure to disclose during discovery. As explained by the district court, Masimo presented its lost profits theory based on the equation: “Lost profits = Apple Watch units sold x Masimo’s per-unit profit.” Masimo claimed…

Contact Us