Princeton Digital Image Corporation (“PDIC”) filed several patent infringement actions against Hewlett-Packard, Fujifilm, Xerox, Facebook and Ricoh, among others. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. The case is based on two patents for digital image processing technology in cameras, computers and other devices. In May…
Articles Posted by Stan Gibson
Hitachi v. Top Victory: Court Declines to Apply Retroactively AIA’s Prohibition on the Use of an Accused Infringer’s Decision Not to Obtain Advice of Counsel as Evidence of Willful Infringement
Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co. LTD. (“Hitachi”) filed a patent infringement action against Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co LTD (“Top Victory”). As the case approached trial, the parties filed several motions in limine. In particular, Top Victory filed a motion in limine to preclude Hitachi from arguing to the jury that…
Motion for Sanctions Based on Threats of Counsel to Reexamine Patents and to Take Other Action Against Outside Counsel, Although at Best “Silly Posturing and at Worst Unprofessional,” Insufficient to Justify Sanctions Because of First Amendment
Plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“VSi”) filed a motion for sanctions against defendant MicroStrategy (“MS”). The sanctions motion was based on statements that VSi characterized as threats against both VSi and its counsel by an outside counsel and a principal of MS, in conjunction with MS’s filing of a request for…
Canon Establishes Economic Prong of Domestic Industry Requirement on Summary Determination in ITC Proceeding
Complainants Canon, Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Virginia, Inc. (“Canon”) filed a motion for summary determination that Canon satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for each of the patents in the investigation. Canon asserted that it satisfied “[t]he economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based…
Apple v. Samsung: The Next Round Begins in District Court with the Court Ordering the Case Streamlined Limiting Each Side to Twenty-Five Asserted Claims and Accused Products and Stating “the Court Will Not Permit the Parties to Involve over Fifty Experts
In the next round of litigation in the ongoing war between Apple and Samsung over Smartphones, the district court ordered the parties to file a joint status report to address whether the new action should be stayed pending the appeal in the prior litigation. As explained by the district court,…
Carnegie Mellon v. Marvell: After a $1 Billion Damage Award, Marvell Loses Motion to Compel Documents for Its Laches Defense Because It Waited Too Long to File and the Court Would Not Entertain Such “Wild Goose Chases” at This Late Juncture
Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”) filed a patent infringement action against Marvell asserting that Marvell had infringed two of its patents. Two months after the jury returned a verdict in excess of $1 Billion, Marvell filed a motion to compel certain documents based on entries on CMU’s privilege log that it…
Apple’s Motion to Transfer Action Brought by Core Wireless Denied Where Apple Failed to Identify Specific Witnesses Who Would be Inconvenienced if the Case Were Not Transferred
Core Wireless filed an action against Apple that alleged infringement of several patents in the Eastern District of Texas. Apple moved to transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). As explained by the court, “Core Wireless is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Grand…
Claim for Induced Infringement Survives after Akamai Where Inference of Intent to Induce Infringement Was “not only reasonable; it is almost inescapable”
Plaintiffs Transunion Intelligence LLC and Trans Union LLC (collectively, “Transunion”) filed a patent infringement action against Search America over two patents that are directed to a computer-implemented method and software that is used to access a person’s eligibility to receive financial assistance for healthcare services. Transunion asserted both direct infringement…
Supreme Court’s Decision in Guam v. Minton Has Immediate Impact and Leads to Vacating of Trial so that Court Could Determine If It Had Jurisdiction over Case
In Gunn v. Minton, 2013 WL 610193 (Feb. 20, 2013), a unanimous United States Supreme Court determined that state courts can address legal malpractice disputes even though the underlying action may turn on issues involving patents. As expected, this ruling, which significantly narrowed federal court jurisdiction, is likely to impact…
Plaintiff’s Initiation of ITC Investigation Leads to Stay of District Court Case, including Stay of Patent not Involved in ITC Investigation
Avago Technologies (“Avago”) filed a patent infringement action against IPtronics, Inc. (“IPtronics”) asserting infringement of two U.S. Patents, patent nos. 5,359,447 (the ‘447 patent) and the 6,947,456 (the ‘456 patent) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. After a second amended complaint was filed, Avago…