Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Masimo v. Apple: Remote Depositions Ordered if Deponent Has Not Attended Any In Person Work Meetings and Will Be Required to Continue to Work Remotely

In this patent dispute, Apple sought an order requiring that 11 depositions of Apple employees, noticed by Plaintiffs Masimo Corporation and Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) for May and June 2021 to proceed in-person, in San Francisco, California, instead take place remotely by videoconference under Rule 30(b)(4) of the Federal Rules…

Updated:

Executives’ False Statements Under Oath Regarding Cocaine Use Do Not Justify Terminating Sanctions

Plaintiff ChromaDex, Inc. (“ChromaDex”) filed a motion for terminating sanctions against defendant Elysium Health, Inc. (“Elysium”) based on admissions that Elysium’s executives lied in their depositions regarding one of the executive’s cocaine use. The production of text messages ignited the issue. Elysium had produced text messages from Elysium’s CEO’s phone…

Updated:

District Court Determines Litigation Funding Agreement That Provided Funds to Purchase Patents-in-Suit Discoverable as Relevant to Damages

In this patent infringement action, the district court analyzed whether a litigation funding agreement should be produced. After it reviewed the litigation funding agreement that the plaintiff had entered into with a litigation funder, the district court concluded that the funding agreement itself was not relevant to issues of standing.…

Updated:

No Right to Jury Trial or Evidentiary Hearing for Calculation of Disgorgement of Profits in Design Patent Case

The district court previously granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Red Carpet Studio (“Red Carpet”), finding that Defendants Midwest Trading Group Inc. (“MTG”), Walgreen Company and CVS Pharmacy Inc. infringed the patent-in-suit. The parties agreed that two issues remained: (1) determining the relevant “article of manufacture,” and (2)…

Updated:

Intent to Defraud Patent and Trademark Office Deprives Documents of Attorney-Client Privilege Protection

Plaintiff Global Tubing, LLC (“Global”) filed a motion to compel production of documents withheld as privileged by Defendant Tenaris Coiled Tubes, LLC (“Tenaris”). As explained by the district court, in its motion to compel, Global claimed that Tenaris obtained its patents by deceiving the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), withholding…

Updated:

District Court Determines Pre-Litigation Analysis Sent from Current Litigation Counsel—But Before Retention—Is Not Privileged

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Payrange, sought to withhold as privileged a PowerPoint presentation (the “Proposal”) prepared by its current litigation counsel, Wilson Sonsini. Prior to representing Payrange, but in the hope that it would be retained, Wilson Sonsini prepared the presentation and then forwarded it to Payrange.…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Damage Expert for Allocating Damages Equally Among Multiple Patents

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”), moved to exclude the testimony of Apple’s damages expert, Mr. Thomas. In rebuttal, Mr. Thomas estimated that PMC would be entitled to a lump-sum payment of $1 million per allegedly infringing patent. PMC asserted that Mr. Thomas’ damages…

Updated:

District Court Determines Attorney’s Eyes Only Designation Proper for Relevant Documents Even If They Do Not Constitute Trade Secrets

Plaintiff All Plastic contended it was a leading manufacturer of premium displays and containers for medicinal and recreational cannabis dispensaries. All Plastic filed a patent infringement action against Defendants SamDan LLC d/b/a Smokus Focus (“SamDan”), Samuel Whetsel (“Mr. Whetsel”), and Daniel Russell-Einhorn (“Mr. Russell-Einhorn”) (with Mr. Whetsel, “Individual Defendants” and…

Updated:

Motion to Strike Expert on Invalidity Denied Where Development Documents Were Disclosed Sufficiently in Final Invalidity Contentions

Plaintiff Baxter International (“Baxter”) sued CareFusion Corporation and Becton, Dickson and Company (“Defendants”) for infringement of three medical infusion pump patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,764,034 (the ‘034 Patent), 5,782,805 (the ‘805 Patent), and 6,231,560 (the ‘560 Patent). Baxter moved to strike portions of the Defendants’ invalidity expert, including asserting that…

Contact Us