Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Defendant’s “Piecemeal” Approach to Discovery and Review of Only Select Files of Corporate Employees Results in Sanctions

In this patent infringement action, the defendants conducted a “piecemeal approach to discovery, reviewing only the files of select corporate employees.” The district court found that this approach was contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to repeated orders of the court. In response to plaintiff’s motion to…

Updated:

District Court Denies Request to Stay Discovery Pending Motion to Dismiss Based on Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter

J. Crew filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for patent infringement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that the patents-in-suit are drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. J. Crew also filed a separate motion to stay all disclosures…

Updated:

District Court Denies Request for Order Compelling Production of Damage Expert Report from a Different Pending Case

In this patent infringement action between Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Chrimar”) and Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (“Lucent”). Lucent sought production of the damages expert report of Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Robert Mills, that was created for a litigation currently pending in the Northern District of California. Chrimar opposed the request on the ground…

Updated:

District Court May Preclude Evidence from Parent Company Where Parent Company Was Dismissed from Case and Then Refused to Provide Discovery

When this patent infringement action began, the plaintiff explained that it was concerned that it would not be able to obtain important discovery if Ricoh Company Ltd. (“RCL”), which is the parent company of the defendants, Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (“REI”) and Ricoh Americas Corp. (“RAC”) were dismissed as a party.…

Updated:

As Part of Protective Order, District Court Orders Prosecution Bar and Covenant Not to Sue for New Patents Acquired by Patent Holder

In this patent infringement action, a dispute arose between Plaintiff Blackbird Tech LLC (“Blackbird”) and the defendants over the terms of proposed protective orders to govern the use of confidential information produced. Although the parties agreed that a protective order was appropriate, they disagreed on the level of access by…

Updated:

District Court Precludes Evidence of Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Denial of Institution of Inter Partes Review at Trial

As this patent infringement action proceeded to trial, Google filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Google’s petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims of the patent-in-suit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) denial of institution of those petitions. Google had previously filed petitions with…

Updated:

District Court Strikes Infringement Contentions and Sanctioned Plaintiff for Taking Inconsistent Positions

The defendant, Echoworx, brought a motion to strike ZixCorp’s infringement contentions. ZixCorp had served its original infringement contentions on Echoworx, contending that the elements of the patent-in-suit are software limitations, and stated that it intended to supplement its infringement contentions after Echoworx produced source code for each of Echoworx’s accused…

Updated:

District Court Strikes Documents That Were Not Produced During Discovery Even Though Documents Were Publically Available

In this patent infringement action, Mobile Telecommunications Tech., LLC (“MTel”) filed against Blackberry Corp., MTel moved to exclude certain exhibits that were archived press releases published by RCR Wireless and SkyTel webpage screenshots of advertisements. MTel objected that these exhibits are inadmissible because they have not been authenticated by a…

Updated:

Court Declines to Modify Judgment Based on Collateral Proceedings before the PTAB Finding Claims of Patent-In-Suit Invalid

Summary: In the decision referenced below, the court declined to modify a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure even though the PTAB had found several claims of the patent-in-suit invalid. After a trial and an appeal to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the royalty…

Updated:

Failure to Institute Inter Partes Review Is Not Grounds for Common Law Estoppel to Prevent Defendant from Re-Litigating Issues Raised before the Patent Office

The defendant filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Office. As part of its application, it submitted a 65 page brief along with several hundred page s of accompanying evidence. The plaintiffs submitted a 60 page brief along with its own evidence in response. After the…

Contact Us