Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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,…

Updated:

Defendant Ordered to Provide Access to Licensee Websites

BNB Health Grades, Inc. (“Health Grades”) filed a patent infringement action against MDx Medical, Inc., d/b/a Vitals.com (“MDx”). During the litigation, Health Grades identified licensing agreements and associated systems that it contended could support additional contentions relating to Health Grades’ claim for indirect infringement.” After MDx declined to produce the…

Updated:

Production of Billing Statements from Law Firm Denied Even Though Deponent Could Not Recall Details of Why Information Was Not Disclosed to PTO

The defendants in this patent infringement action sought the production of certain billing statements of the law firm representing CleanTech. The defendants argued that the billing statements were discoverable based on their inequitable conduct defense because a witness was unable to recall why certain information was not disclosed to the…

Updated:

District Court Precludes Deposition of In-House Counsel Who Acted as Part of Trial Team Even Though Counsel Had Relevant, Non-Privileged Conversations Regarding Indemnity

After plaintiff, McAirlaids, requested the deposition of one of Kimberly-Clark’s (“K-C”) in-house litigation counsel, K-C filed a motion for a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to preclude the deposition of its in-house counsel, Vicki Margolis (“Margolis”), who is an active member of its trial team. Counsel…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to File Amended Complaint to Add Direct Infringement Claim

Plaintiff Kaneka Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed a patent infringement against SKC Kolon PI, Inc. (“SKPI” or “Defendant”) and SKC, Inc. (“SKC America”). After the district court issued a scheduling order setting, among other things, a final day to amend pleadings, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend its first amended complaint…

Contact Us