Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Microsoft Invalidates Motorola’s Patent Claims Where Means-Plus-Function Limitations Were Found Indefinite

In this patent infringement action between Microsoft and Motorola, Motorola asserted certain claims of various patents against Microsoft, including claims that included “means for decoding” and “means for using” limitations. Motorola asserted that Microsoft’s Windows 7 operating system and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 9 infringed the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit.…

Updated:

Customer Comments Admissible Over a Hearsay Objection Where Comments Could Be Used to Establish Use of an Infringing Feature

ABT Systems, LLC (“ABT”) filed an action against Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”). As the case proceeded to trial, the district court made some key rulings on motions in limine. In particular, the district court addressed whether customer product reviews on the Internet were admissible over a hearsay objection. As the…

Updated:

Transfer from Wisconsin to Eastern District of Texas Appropriate Where Cases Involving the Same Patent Were Proceeding in Texas

TravelClick, Inc. (“TravelClick”) filed a declaratory judgment action against defendants Variant Holdings, LLC and Variant, Inc. (“Variant”), seeking a declaration that its iHotelier online hotel reservation system did not infringe Variant’s patent number 7,626,044 (the ‘044 patent). Variant filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of…

Updated:

Watch What You Say to the Press: Statements by Executives That Design-Arounds Were Already In Place Justifies Denial of Stay of Permanent Injunction

After the jury found defendant A10 Networks (“A10”) liable for misappropriation of trade secrets and infringement of patents owned by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al (“Brocade”), the court entered two permanent injunctions against A10, one that prohibited additional patent infringement and another that applied to the misappropriation of trade…

Updated:

Failure to Provide Computation of Damages in Initial Disclosures Precludes Any Evidence of Damages at Trial

In this patent infringement action, Vinotemp International (“Vinotemp”) brought suit against Wine Master Cellars, LLP (“Wine Master”). Wine Master filed a counterclaim for patent infringement. Prior to trial, Vinotemp moved to preclude Wine Master from offering evidence of damages at trial. As explained by the district court, “Vinotemp moves to…

Updated:

Judge in Northern District of California Advises Parties That Federal Circuit’s Model Order on E-Discovery Is a Presumptive Starting Point for E-Discovery Orders

Positive Technologies, Inc. (“Positive Technologies”) filed a patent infringement action against Sony Electronics and Amazon, among others. Amazon filed a motion for entry of the Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s Model Order regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases (the “Model Order”). The Model Order provides for specific limits on e-discovery. There are…

Updated:

Allegations of Inducing Infringement Insufficient Where Plaintiff Failed to Plead Allegations Sufficient to Support an Inference of Intent to Induce Infringement

Plaintiff Benjamin Grobler (“Grobler”) filed a patent infringement action against Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“Sony”) alleging direct and indirect (both inducing and contributory) infringement. Grobler subsequently filed an amended complaint that removed the contributory infringement claim and asserted a claim for indirect infringement limited to inducing infringement. Sonly filed…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: The District Court Issues Its Final Rulings Denying Motions for New Trial and Finding No Willful Infringement; Next Stop the Federal Circuit

In a set of mixed rulings for the parties, the district court denied the parties’ motions for new trial, found Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple’s patents, invalidated certain claims of one of Samsung’s patents, denied Samsung’s motion for indefiniteness of certain of Apple’s patents and denied Apple’s motion for…

Updated:

Recommendation to Grant Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Where Plaintiff Did Not Retain Sufficient Rights in Patent-in-Suit

Azure Networks, LLC and Tri-County Excelsior Foundation (“Plaintiffs,” “Azure” or “TCEF”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants, including Qualcomm and Marvell, among others. As explained by the court, “[t]he ‘129 Patent is entitled ‘Personal Area Network with Automatic Attachment and Detachment’ and discloses a Personal Area Network (“PAN”),…

Updated:

Allegations That Patent Holder “Buried” the Patent and Trademark Office with Prior Art References Insufficient to Support Inequitable Conduct Claim

Plaintiff Parkervision, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Qualcomm. Qualcomm answered the complaint and alleged an affirmative defense of inequitable conduct and a counterclaim that included a claim for inequitable conduct. Parkervision moved to strike the affirmative defense and the counterclaims pertaining to inequitable conduct, among other defenses and…

Contact Us