Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Counterclaim for Invalidity Dismissed Even Though It Complied with Form 18 Because It Contained Conclusory Allegations

Plaintiff Wisconsin Technology Venture Group, LLC (“Wisconsin Technology”) contended that Fatwallet, Inc. (“Fatwallet”) infringed its patent pertaining to Internet technology. Fatwallet filed several affirmative defenses, as well as counterclaims for invalidity and non-infringement of the patent-in-suit. Wisconsin Technology moved to dismiss the counterclaims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for defendant’s failure to…

Updated:

Imperium v. Apple: Seventy-Four Products Added Against Apple on Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions Even Though Trial Set for April 2013

Plaintiff Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc. (“Imperium”) filed a patent infringement action accusing eight defendants of infringing several patents. With respect to Apple, Imperium asserted that Apple infringed all of the patents-in-suit and listed the iPhone 3G, specifically. Imperium subsequently provided detailed claim charts setting forth Imperium’s theory of infringement in…

Updated:

WiFi “Sniffing” Ruled Not a Violation of the Wiretap Act Where Patent Holder Sought to Collect Information That Was Available over Public WiFi Networks

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC (“Innovatio”) filed patent infringement actions against various hotels, coffee shops, restaurants and supermarkets for the use of wireless Internet technology located throughout the United States. Innovatio filed a motion for entry of a protocol for collection of electronic evidence and a preliminary ruling on the admissibility…

Updated:

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Denied Even Though Defendant Contended that Patent Infringement Claim Contradicted the Specification of the Patent-In-Suit

Intendis, Inc. (“Intendis”) and Dow Pharmaceutical Sciences, Inc. (“Dow”) filed a patent infringement action against River’s Edge Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“River’s Edge”). Dow owns the patent-in-suit and Intendis is the exclusive licensee. According to the district court, “[t]he ‘383 patent is listed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as covering…

Updated:

Court Strikes Infringement Contentions for Adding New Products and Then Strikes Back Door Attempt to Include Stricken Products in the Expert Report

In this patent infringement action between Eon Corp. (“Eon”) and Alcatel-Lucent (“ALU”), among others, Eon served patent infringement contentions, which were repeatedly challenged by ALU and other defendants. As part of this process, Eon filed a further amended complaint against ALU alleging indirect infringement. In this amended complaint, ALU did…

Updated:

Verizon Successfully Moves to Sever and Stay Patent Infringement Action Based on “Customer Suit Exception”

Plaintiff Micro Enhanced Technology Inc. (“Micro”) filed a patent infringement action against Videx, Inc., accusing Videx of infringing six patents. Micro subsequently amended its complaint to add two defendants, Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) and ITC Holdings Corp. (“ITC”), both of whom are customers of Videx. Verizon filed a motion to dismiss…

Updated:

Court Severs Defendants in Multi-Defendant Action But Then Consolidates the Severed Cases

Plaintiff Oasis Research, LLC (“Oasis”) filed a patent infringement action against twelve defendants alleging infringement of four patents. Generally, the patents claim methods for allowing a home computer user to remotely connect to an online service system for external data and program storage in addition to increased processing capabilities in…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: Court Denies Samsung’s Motion for an Adverse Jury Instruction Because Samsung Waited for “Months and Months” and Only Sought the Instruction During Trial

The epic patent battle between Apple and Samsung has proved taxing not only for the lawyers and the parties in the case, but also for the judicial system as well. In a recent decision by the Magistrate Judge handling many of the discovery issues in the case, the court pointed…

Updated:

Google Attempts to Intervene at the ITC in an Investigation Initiated by Nokia against HTC

Google moved to intervene as a respondent in the investigation brought by Nokia against HTC. HTC supported Google’s intervention and Nokia opposed it. Google asserted that it should be permitted to intervene as a respondent to defend its products and services and to protect its interest in the investigation. As…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung Moves to Preclude Apple from Commenting on Samsung’s Failure to Call Certain Witnesses at Trial

As the patent trial between Samsung and Apple continues, Samsung moved to preclude Apple from either eliciting testimony or attorney comment on Samsung’s failure to call certain witnesses to testify at trial. In its motion, Samsung asserted that permitting such testimony would be prejudicial and would be inappropriate because the…

Contact Us