Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Stay Pending Resolution of Covered Business Method Review Denied Where Case Was Narrow and Trial Date Was Already Set

Plaintiff SecureBuy, LLC (“SecureBuy”) filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings pending resolution of a Covered Business Methods (“CBM”) review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”). When the motion was stayed, the PTAB had not yet granted review of the CBM petition. Before ruling on the stay request, the…

Updated:

Quantum World v. Dell: After Receiving Numerous Daubert Motions, District Court Lays Down Strict Time Limits for Trial and Rules That Daubert Motion Hearing Time Will Count Against Time Limits for Party That Brings and Loses a Daubert Challenge

In this patent infringement case, the district court received a number of motions to strike portions of expert reports and to exclude the testimony of certain experts. As stated by the district court, it received the following: “Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report and Exclude the Testimony…

Updated:

Potter Voice v. Microsoft: Microsoft’s Request to Exclude Expert Declaration for Claim Construction Denied Where Microsoft’s Arguments Went to Weight and Credibility, Not to Admissibility

In this patent infringement action, Potter Voice submitted an expert declaration of David Klausner for the purpose of claim construction. Microsoft moved to exclude the declaration under Fed.R.Evid. 702. The district court explained the background of the patent as follows: In 1998, United States patent number 5,729,659 (the ‘659 patent)…

Updated:

GPNE v. Apple: Court Precludes Retention of Experts Where Expert Had Consulted for Apple’s Competitors

Plaintiff GPNE Corporation (“GPNE”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple. As part of its case, GPNE wanted to retain two experts, Ghobad Heidari and Kamran Etemad, and Apple objected for two reasons. First, as explained by the court, Apple argued that if Heidari and Etemad are given access to…

Updated:

Inter Partes Review Terminated Where PTAB Found That Challenged Claims Were Indefinite

Petitioner, BlackBerry Corporation and BlackBerry Limited (“Blackberry”), filed a petition on October 30, 2012, for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 6,871,048 (“the ‟048 patent”). On March 18, 2013, the Board instituted trial on claims 1-12 of the ‟048 patent based on all grounds…

Updated:

VirnetX v. Apple: Court Grants Enhanced Ongoing Royalty Based on Disparity Between Position at Trial and Position Post-Judgment on Non-Infringing Alternatives

On August 11, 2010, VirnetX filed suit alleging that Apple and several other defendants infringed several U.S. Patents, which generally describe a method for transparently creating a virtual private network (“VPN”) between a client computer and a target computer or disclosing a secure domain name service. The accused products were…

Updated:

Expert Permitted to Rely on Consultant Who Conducted “Survey” Even Though Consultant Was Not a “Survey” Expert

Zurn Industries, Inc. (“Zurn”) moved to exclude Sloan Valve Company’s (“Sloan”) consultant witness and other testimony based on the consultant’s investigation. The patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,607,635, entitled “Flush Valve Handle Assembly Providing Dual Mode Operation” (the “‘635 Patent”), pertains “to flush valves for use with plumbing fixtures such as…

Updated:

Sonic Industry v. iRobot: Court Sua Sponte Strikes iRobot’s Affirmative Defenses for Failure to Comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Sonic Industry (“Sonic”) filed a patent infringement action against iRobot Corporation (“iRobot”). iRobot filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the patent infringement complaint. The district court issued a memorandum order sua sponte because of some “problematic aspects of that responsive pleading.” The district court noted that iRobot had regularly…

Updated:

Infringement Expert Excluded Where Expert Did Nothing More Than Parrot Claim Language in Infringement Analysis

Plantronics, Inc. (“Plantronics”) filed a patent infringement action against ALIPH, Inc. (“ALIPH”). After expert reports were submitted, ALIPH moved to exclude the expert report of Plantronics’ infringement expert. At the heart of the action is the fit of ear buds in a human ear. However, the district court found that…

Updated:

Emblaze v. Apple: Court Declines to Stay the Case Pending the United States Supreme Court’s Decision in Akamai v. Limelight Networks

In this patent infringement action between Emblaze and Apple, Apple filed a motion to stay the case pending the recent grant of certiorari in Akamai v. Limelight Networks. In Akamai, a divided en banc Federal Circuit panel held that Akamai did not have to prove that any Limelight customer directly…

Contact Us