Four weeks prior to trial, defendant Cerner Corporation (“Cerner”) filed a motion to join a summary judgment motion filed by a defendant in a related case involving the same patents. In the summary judgment motion in the related case involving Allscripts, Allscripts argued that the plaintiff’s (RLIS) patents claim ineligible…
Articles Posted by Stan Gibson
With Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Against It, Plaintiff Requests District Court to Order Parties to Mediation and District Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion Instead
Princeton Digital Image Corp. (“Princeton Digital”) filed a patent infringement action against Hewlett-Packard and Hewlett Packard filed a summary judgment motion. With the summary judgment motion pending, Princeton Digital filed a letter with the district court requesting that the district court order a mediation between the parties pursuant to Local…
Oral Assignment Ineffective to Convey Patent Rights and Subsequent Assignment too Late to Save Complaint from Dismissal with Prejudice for Lack of Standing
The plaintiff, Freed Designs, Inc. (“Freed Designs”), filed a patent infringement action defendant Sig Sauer. Robert Freed is the sole inventor of the ‘764 Patent, titled “Grip Extender For Hand Gun.” Freed is also the sole owner and President of Plaintiff Freed Designs. Plaintiff alleged that Sig Sauer makes, sells,…
Daubert Motion Denied Where Defendant Had “Salubrious Fodder” for Cross-Examination If Plaintiff’s Expert Used Wrong Source Code
Defendant Adobe Systems (“Adobe”) filed a Daubert motion seeking to limit the testimony of plaintiff EveryScapes’ expert, Dr. Maja Bystrom (“Dr. Bystrom”), for three reasons. First, Adobe sought to exclude the testimony that the Mok3 Perspective Clone Brush practiced claims of EveryScape’s patent, partly because Dr. Bystrom allegedly relied on…
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective Order Denied But Cautions Defendant That Sanctions Will Be Awarded If Defendant Fails to Convince the Court That a Protective Order Should Not Be Entered
In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs’ filed a motion for a standard protective order to prevent the defendant from sharing confidential information. The district court denied the motion because the motion was not in the form of a joint stipulated as required by the local rules. As explained by the…
Premature Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Denied Where Patent Trial and Appeal Board Had Not Yet Granted the Petition for Review
Reflectix, Inc., Innovative Insulation, Inc., TVM Building Products, Inc., Energy Efficient Solutions, LLC, and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion to stay pending and Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) that was filed with the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (“PTAB”). The plaintiff opposed the motion to stay on…
Motion to Strike “Errata Sheets” to Deposition Testimony Granted Where Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses Changed Answers from “No” to “Yes”
In this patent infringement action, the defendant filed a motion to strike the “errata sheets” to deposition testimony of two of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Neill Luebke and Robert Sinclair. The plaintiff opposed the motion to strike. As explained by the district court, “[t]here is an old joke that only lawyers…
District Court Declines to Award Supplemental Damages for Pre-Verdict Damages Even Though Defendant Did Not Produce All of Its Financial Documents
After a jury trial in which TransPerfect was awarded damages, TransPerfect moved for an award of supplemental damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 on the theory that the jury did not award it damages for infringement that occurred after December 31, 2011. TransPerfect contended that the jury’s damage award of…
Daubert Challenge to Damage Expert Denied Where Contested Matters Were for Cross-Examination and Not Proper for Exclusion
In this patent infringement action, Apple challenged the opinions of the plaintiff’s damage expert on several bases, including the determination of a royalty rate based on the price of third-party applications. First, Apple contended that the expert’s, Mr. Bratic’s, “analysis is deficient and unreliable because MTEL’s technical expert categorically stated…
Motion to Reconsider Claim Construction Order on Indefiniteness after Nautilus Denied Where District Court Found Term Definite
Defendant Stealth Cam, LLC (“Stealth Cam”) requested that the district court reconsider its Claim Construction Order holding that the term “extending parallel” was not indefinite. The district court first noted that under the local rules a party must show “compelling circumstances” to obtain permission to file a motion to reconsider,…