After the district court granted a motion to compel in which it overruled the defendants’ objections and ordered the defendants to provide complete responses to the interrogatories and to produce all responsive documents, the defendants provided supplemental responses but renewed the overruled objections and asserted additional objections that were not…
Novartis sought to use the deposition testimony of defendant’s expert at trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(4)(B). As explained by the district court, “the Rule provides that a party may use the deposition of a witness for any purpose” if “the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of hearing…
After the jury returned a verdict of approximately $390 million against SAP and the verdict was affirmed on appeal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) preliminarily invalidated the patent (subject to appeal to the Federal Circuit). As a result, SAP moved to stay the execution of the judgment or,…
In this patent infringement action, both parties moved to redact information from the transcripts and both motions were unopposed. The district court found that the information should be redacted because it had been disclosed in open court. In reaching this conclusion, the district court noted that there were procedures in…
Having obtained a $1.5 billion judgment and an ongoing royalty against Marvell, Carnegie Mello University (“CMU”) sought to liquidated the ongoing royalty amount in the Final Judgment. In response, Marvell argued that the district court made clear in its decision that such ongoing royalties are to be dealt with as…
Plaintiff Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (“Andrulis”) filed a patent infringement action against Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”) alleging direct, induced, and contributory infringement. Celgene filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim. After Andrulis voluntarily dismissed the contributory infringement claim, the district court analyzed the claims for…
Plaintiff Nu Flow Technologies (2000) Inc. (“Nu Flow) filed a patent infringement action against Defendant A.O. Reed & Company (“A.O. Reed”) and ten Doe defendants based on two patents U.S. Patent No. 7,849,883 B2 (the ‘883 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,691,741 132 (the ‘741 patent). The ‘883 patent, entitled…
Digital Ally, Inc. (“Digital Ally”) filed a declaratory judgment action pertaining to patent infringement against Utility Associates, Inc. (“Utility”). Utility filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Digital Ally is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas. It sells advanced…
Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action and also filed an application to proceed in pro per and In Forma Pauperis. The defendants file a motion to dismiss the action based on false statements in the application. As the district court explained, “[t]he Application requires the applicant to detail all sources…
After a jury returned a verdict against Marvell for patent infringement, Carnegie Mellon (“CMU”) filed several motions, including for prejudgment interest, for supplemental damages, for enhanced damages, for an ongoing, increased royalty rate triple what the jury found, and for a permanent injunction. With respect to prejudgment interest, the district…