Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

TC Technology v. Sprint: District Court Grants Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Willfulness Claim Finding Good Cause Based on Deposition Testimony

TC Technology filed a patent infringement action against Sprint alleging that Sprint infringed a patent pertaining to wireless services used on an LTE network. The complaint did not allege willful infringement. During discovery, Sprint responded that it had received an email several years before the lawsuit was filed with an…

Updated:

District Order Issues Sanctions Deeming Defendant’s Summary Of Infringing Sales Established As True Where Defendant Failed to Comply With Multiple Court Orders

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Stuebing Automatic Machine Co. (“Stuebing”) filed a motion for violation of multiple discovery orders against the defendant. As part of the motion, Stuebing sought issue sanctions, including to have certain sales information deemed established. Stuebing had previously served multiple discovery requests, including interrogatories…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Opinion Of Damage Expert On Licenses That Were Not Economically Comparable

The plaintiff, Bayer, moved to exclude the opinion of the defendant’s damage expert, Dr. Rausser, for failing to show that the licenses that he used for his reasonable royalty analysis were technologically or economically comparable to the license resulting from the hypothetical negotiation.  The district court agreed with Bayer on…

Updated:

Qualcomm v. Apple: District Court Excludes Apple’s Experts’ Testimony Where Relied Upon Licenses Were Not Technologically Comparable

In the ongoing litigation war between Qualcomm and Apple, spanning multiple forums around the country, Qualcomm moved to exclude Apple’s technical experts’ reliance on certain license agreements by asserting that the agreement involved technology that was not sufficiently comparable.  After reviewing the license agreements, the experts’ opinions, and the law,…

Updated:

Motion to Disqualify Based on Joint Defense Agreement Denied Where Agreement Did Not Create Implied Attorney-Client Relationship

In a patent infringement action, Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.’s (collectively, “Takeda”) filed a motion to disqualify Baker Botts, L.L.P. (“Baker Botts”) from representing Defendants Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively, “Zydus”). Takeda moved to disqualify Baker Botts from representing Zydus based on…

Updated:

Virtual Patent Marking: Does It Work? One District Court Says It Might

National Products, Inc. (“NPI”) filed a patent infringement action Akron Resources, Inc. (“Akron”), among others.  The parties filed several cross motions for summary judgment, including a motion for summary judgment based on the failure to mark. As explained by the district court, the parties did not dispute that: “1) NPI…

Updated:

District Court Quashes Deposition Notices Where Notices Did Not Take into Account Travel Time between States

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Whirlpool Properties (“Whirlpool”) noticed several depositions of third-party witnesses near the discovery cut-off.  The defendant, Filters Fast, moved for an order to stop the depositions. As explained by the district court, “[t]he crux of the pending motion is that the Whirlpool Plaintiffs emailed…

Updated:

Karl Storz v. Sryker: District Court Strikes Infringement Expert Who Provided No Analysis of Infringement

In this patent infringement action, Stryker moved to strike the expert report of Karl Storz’ (“KSEA”) infringement expert because the expert did not provide any analysis of infringement of the patent-in-suit. As explained by the district court, Karl Storz’ infringement expert’s, Mr. Gould Bear, report included six sections: (1) introduction,…

Updated:

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Requiring Defendant to Stop Inter Partes Review at Patent Office Because of Forum Selection Clause

The plaintiff Dodocase VR, Inc. filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against Defendants MerchSource, LLC (“MerchSource”) and ThreeSixty Brands Group LLC (“ThreeSixty”) (together, “Defendants”) requesting that the court order the Defendants to withdraw certain petitions filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB Petitions”).…

Updated:

Ericsson v. TCL: District Court Tosses Out Damage Theory Based on Improper Use of Survey

During a jury trial, Ericsson asserted that TCL infringed claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,510 (the “‘510 Patent”) by selling phones and devices that included the Google Android operating system. The jury found that TCL infringed claims 1 and 5, that TCL’s infringement was willful, and awarded…

Contact Us