Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: Rule 37 Sanctions Ordered Against Samsung for Failure to Timely Produce Documents Despite Two Court Orders

Apple sought sanctions against Samsung pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) in two separate motions pertaining to alleged violations of discovery orders, including an order regarding discovery on damages. The court had initially ordered Samsung to produce two categories of documents: (1) documents from the custodial files of Samsung designers of the…

Updated:

Inequitable Conduct Defense Dismissed Where Defendants Did Not Even Purport to Identify an Allegedly Fraudulent Document Submitted to the PTO

Zep Solar Inc. (“Zep”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants. Two of the defendants, Lightway Green new Energy Company, LTD (“Lightway”) and Brightway Global LLC (“Brightway”) answered and counterclaimed with an allegation of inequitable conduct. Zep moved to strike or dismiss the counterclaim and affirmative defense. As the…

Updated:

Inventor Not Required to Answer Hypothetical Questions at Deposition Because He Was Not Designated as an Expert

Plaintiff Homeland Houswares, LLC (“Homeland”) filed a declaratory judgment action for a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity against Sorensen Research and Development Trust (“Sorensen”). Homeland took the deposition of one of the inventors of the patent-in-suit, Mr. Paul Brown. Mr. Brown is the co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,599,460 (the…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: Court Grants Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Samsung High-Level Executives But Limits the Time of the Depositions

Apple noticed the depositions of several high-ranking employees at Samsung and moved to compel their depositions. As the district court explained, “Apple argues that it entitled to these depositions because each SEC witness has unique, firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge of facts and events central to this litigation. The SEC witnesses acted…

Updated:

Court Denies Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Employee Expert Even Though Employee Expert Testified at Deposition That His Report Contained No Opinions and Repeatedly Invoked the Attorney-Client Privilege During Deposition

Defendant, Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”), identified and disclosed an employee as an expert pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and submitted several disclosures for the employee expert as well. Plaintiff moved to exclude the employee expert’s disclosures on grounds of (a) improper hearsay, (b) undisclosed opinions regarding prior art, (c) unreliable opinions, (d)…

Updated:

Oracle v. Google: Google Moves to Exclude Portions of the Court-Appointed Expert’s Report on Patent Damages

As the battle over Android heads into trial, the district court appointed an expert on damages because the damages presented were complex and widely divergent. After the court-appointed expert submitted its report, Google moved to exclude portions of the expert report on patent damages. After reviewing the standards for expert…

Updated:

Plaintiff Prohibited from Offering Evidence of Defendants’ Overall Economic Status and Profitability During Patent Infringement Trial

In this patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas between SimpleAir and a number of defendants, including Apple, the defendants filed a motion in limine to preclude SimpleAir from referencing the revenue or profits associated with Defendants’ products or Defendants’ overall economic status, profitability, or relative financial…

Updated:

Damage Award of $5 Million Upheld Where Plaintiff Submitted Expert Testimony of Running Royalty Rate and Jury Was Not Required to Adopt Either of the Parties Royalty Calculations

Plaintiff, Imaginal Systems, LLC (“Imaginal”) filed a patent infringement action against Leggett & Platt, Inc. (“Leggett”) and Simmons Bedding Company (“Simmons”) over three patents, which pertain to automatic stapling machines and a method of manufacturing box spring mattresses. The district court ruled on summary judgment that Imaginal’s patents were valid…

Updated:

Thereasense Round Two: Even After “Seismic Shift” in the Law of Inequitable Conduct, District Court Applies Federal Circuit’s New Standard and Still Finds Patent Invalid Due to Inequitable Conduct

On remand to the district court after the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., the district court reviewed the procedural posture of the case and the landmark Therasense decision. The district court noted that “Therasense worked a seismic shift in the law of inequitable…

Contact Us