Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Motion to Exclude Damage Expert under Daubert Denied Where Expert Relied upon Incremental Profit and Cross-Examination Was Sufficient to Challenge Expert

Plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) alleged infringement of several patents against Best Buy Stores, L.P. (“Best Buy”) that pertain to stored value/debit cards. Best Buy moved to exclude the opinion of Alexsam’s damage expert, James L. McGovern, asserting that Mr. McGovern was applying a “rule of thumb” analysis that had no…

Updated:

Inadvertent Disclosure Did Not Waive Privilege and Crime Fraud Exception Held Not to Apply Even Though Disclosed Document May Show That Plaintiff’s Counsel Told Plaintiff It Had a Weak Legal Claim

After the plaintiff, Peerless Industries, Inc. (“Peerless”) produced an arguably privileged document to the defendant, Crimson AV LLC (“Crimson”), Peerless asserted that the document was inadvertently disclosed and was privileged. Crimson filed a motion to compel production of the document, particularly asserting that it should be produced under an exception…

Updated:

Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Denied without Prejudice Where Inter Partes Review Had Not Yet Been Granted

Plaintiff Automatic Manufacturing Systems, Inc. (“AMS”) manufactures and markets equipment used to print machine readable labels on glass microscope slides. Defendant Primera Technology, Inc. (“Primera”) competes against AMS in the glass-microscope-slide-printing-machine market. AMS owns U.S. Patent No. 8,013,884 (“the ‘884 patent”), The ‘884 patent is directed to a device that…

Updated:

Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgment for Non-Infringement and Invalidity Dismissed as Duplicative of Infringement Complaint and Failure to Plead Any Facts Describing How the Patent Was Invalid

Plaintiff, The Sliding Door Company (“Sliding Door”), brought an action for patent infringement against KLS Doors, LLC (“KLS Doors”) alleging infringement of a patent for a sliding door system. KLS Doors filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment for, among other things, that it did not infringe the patent and that…

Updated:

Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Denied Because Defendant Waited Too Long to File the Petition and Court Had Dedicated Resources to Determining Claim Construction

Defendant Universal Remote Control, Inc. (“Universal Remote”) filed a motion to stay a patent infringement action filed by Universal Electronics, Inc. (“Universal Electronics”) pending an Inter Partes Review in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Universal Remote and Universal Electronics are competitors in the universal remote control business.…

Updated:

Assignment Agreement That Failed to Specifically Address Right to Sue for Past Damages Held Insufficient on Summary Judgment; Summary Judgment Granted to Limit Damages to Period After Patent Was Acquired

Plaintiff Nano-Second Technology filed a patent infringement action against Dynaflex International, GForce Corporation, d/b/a/ DFX Sports & Fitness. As part of the patent infringement action, Nano-Second alleged “that Defendants have infringed upon its ‘311 Patent by selling, importing, making, offering, or using wrists exercisers (“Accused Products”) that fall within the…

Updated:

Community Property Rights of Ex-Wife Impact Standing of Plaintiff to Maintain Patent Infringement Action

James R. Taylor (“Taylor”) filed a patent infringement action against Taylor Made Inc. (“Taylor Made”). Taylor Made filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that Taylor did not have standing to maintain the patent infringement action because Taylor’s ex-wife had not been made a party to the…

Updated:

Administrative Law Judge at ITC Grants Motion for Leave to File Motions for Summary Determination Out of Time Because Complainant Did Not Provide Additional Support for Infringement Contentions in Expert Report

In this ITC proceeding, the Respondents filed a motion for leave to file motions for summary determination after the deadline for filing motions for summary determination set by the procedural schedule. Respondents asserted that good cause existed for granting the motion because it would efficiently resolve all of the issues…

Updated:

$50 Million Jury Verdict Over Turned Where Plaintiff Based Damage Theory on Worldwide Sales of Accused Products But Only Established That “Some” of Worldwide Sales Were Infringing

Promega Corporation (“Promega”) filed a patent infringement action against Life Technologies Corporation (“Life Technologies”), among others, over four patents pertaining to a type of DNA testing called “multiplex amplification of shorten tandem repeat loci.” Prior to trial, the district court determined that two of the defendants sell testing kits that…

Updated:

Apple Moves to Limit Claims Asserted and Court Orders the Plaintiff to Reduce 247 Claims to 70 Claims over 10 Patents

Plaintiff Unwired Planet (“UP”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple asserting over 247 claims in ten different patents. Apple filed a motion to limit the number of claims. In the motion, Apple asserted that UP had included approximately 80% of the total number of claims in the patents. Apple…

Contact Us