In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff intended to use a damage expert to support a “lost profits” measure of damages and/or a “reasonable royalty” measure of damages. Defendant moved to exclude the lost profits analysis because the damage expert ignored the testimony of Plaintiff’s corporate designee that contradicted his ultimate…
Force Majeure in California: Does the COVID-19 Pandemic Qualify? A Three Part Series By Stan Gibson Part 1 – What Constitutes a Force Majeure See Part 1 – What Constitutes a Force Majeure See Part 2 – Asserting Force Majeure See Part 3 – Practical Guidance Introduction The ongoing COVID-19…
District Court Permits Ex Parte Communication with Former Employee and Co-Inventor of Plaintiff But Orders Defendants to Turn Over Certain Email Communications by Stan Gibson and Julia Consoli-Tiensvold In ICM Controls Corp. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Plaintiffs ICM Control Corp. (“Plaintiffs” or “ICM”) filed a letter motion objecting to ex…
Some delay of deadlines, continued trial dates and restricted court access Implications for Litigants For more information on how we can help you and your business, visit our COVID-19 Resource Center. This JMBM Client Alert summarizes the most relevant changes made by popular patent litigation venues, the Federal Circuit Court…
In this patent infringement action, Defendants moved to amend their invalidity contentions and justified the amendment based, in part, on the replacement of its technical expert. Defendants asserted that its “replacement technical expert (engaged in December 2019 following the passing of prior expert Thomas Gafford) completed an independent review of…
As many district courts around the country close doors on physical appearances, some district courts are ordering that civil hearings proceed either telephonically or by video. Although such an approach is common in many state courts, it is much more unusual for telephonic or video appearances to occur in district…
In this patent infringement action, the parties jointly moved the court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), to allow the parties to claw back the production of not just attorney-client information, but also proprietary and confidential information. To support the request, the parties explained that…
The district court appointed a special master to resolve the amount of attorney’s fees to which Defendants, including Cisco, were entitled. As the special master noted, the fees claimed by Cisco were paid under an alternative flat monthly fee arrangement with its counsel, which in recent years, have increased as…
Plaintiff Innovation Sciences, LLC (“Innovation”) initiated a patent infringement action against Defendant Amazon.com (“Amazon”). The original complaint asserted three groups of patents, encompassing a total of ten patents. After the district court found certain of the patents invalid because they were abstract and the Federal Circuit affirmed, Innovation filed an…
The plaintiff, The Hillman Group, Inc. (“Hillman”), moved to disqualify Cooley LLP (“Cooley”) in this patent infringement action based on its relationship with Minute Key that is now wholly owned by Hillman. Cooley, which had represented Minute Key throughout its acquisition by Hillman, now represented the defendant in this case,…