Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Permanent Injunction Granted Against Verizon’s Video on Demand Service Even Though Plaintiff Was Not a Direct Competitor

After ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. (“ActiveVideo”) prevailed on a patent infringement action against Verizon Communications, Inc. (“Verizon”) before a jury, ActiveVideo moved for a permanent injunction. ActiveVideo moved to enjoin Verizon’s further use of Verizon’s Video on Demand (“VOD”) services offered through its FiOS system. Verizon opposed the motion and also…

Updated:

New Trial on Damages Ordered Where Expert’s Reliance on 25% Rule Was Inappropriate in Light of Uniloc and Availability of Non-Infringing Substitute Was Not Considered

Spine Solutions, Inc. (“SSI”) sued Medtronic Sofamor Danek (“Medtronic”) for patent infringement alleging that three of Medtronic’s artificial disc implants infringed an SSI patent. The case proceeded to trial and the jury awarded $5.7 million in lost profits and an 18 percent royalty on the other infringing sales. The jury…

Updated:

Apple Seeks Order Preventing Samsung’s Attorney from Participating in Further Depositions on Charges That Attorney Did Not Practice with Honesty, Care and Decorum

In the ongoing action between Apple and Samsung, Apple filed a motion for a protective order seeking to prohibit one of Samsung’s attorneys from participating in any further depositions. Alternatively, Apple sought an order restricting the attorney from engaging in particularly abusive deposition acts, including belligerent and insulting treatment of…

Updated:

Leave of Court Required Before Summary Judgment Motion Can Be Filed Denied Where “Look and Feel” of a Website Was Not Indefinite

In a case pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the district court entered an order that leave of court must be obtained before a summary judgment motion may be filed. Defendant filed a letter brief with the district court seeking leave to file…

Updated:

Brand New Expert on Reply Precluded as Litigation Maneuver as Google’s Motion to Strike Oracle’s Expert Is Granted

Oracle served an opening damages expert report in May 2011 and it did not serve any other opening damages expert reports. Google challenged the expert report with a Daubert motion, which the district court granted in July 2011. In the order granting the Daubert motion, the district court allowed Oracle…

Updated:

Lucent’s Damages Against Microsoft Keep Getting Smaller as $70 Million Is Reduced to $26 Million

In the ongoing trial over damages for several Microsoft products between Lucent and Microsoft, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has reduced the damage award against Microsoft from $70 million to $26.3 million, plus prejudgment interest. The new trial on damages occurred after the Federal…

Updated:

Motion to Stay Based on Customer Suit Exception Denied as Premature Where Infringement Contentions Had Not Yet Been Served

The plaintiff sued over 500 defendants for patent infringement in multiple actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The patent-at-issue claims a “‘software interface’ that may provide a ‘map of a selected geographic area’ such that ‘information which is associated with particular geographic locations,’…

Updated:

The Battle Over Android: Oracle and Google Experts Differ by Billions on Damages So Court Appoints Its Own Expert

In the continuing battle over the Android operating system, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California decided to appoint its own damage expert. The district court explained that under Fed.R.Evid. 706(a), the district court “may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection” and noted that the…

Updated:

After Six Years, Stay Pending Reexamination Is Lifted As the Life of the Patents Is Nearly Extinguished

In December 2004 and early in 2005, the plaintiff filed three patent infringement actions against several parties. The district court consolidated the cases. All of the consolidated cases were stayed by the district court pending reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Many years later, the Board of Patent…

Updated:

Failure to Disclose Expert on Timely Basis Justifies Exclusion Before Markman Hearing

In this patent infringement action, the defendant moved to exclude plaintiff’s expert witness on the basis that the expert was not disclosed on a timely basis. The plaintiff disclosed the witness on November 4, 2011, as an expert to testify as to “the molecular weigh characterization of polymers” in a…

Contact Us