In a recent development in patent litigation, the district court has granted a motion to dismiss counterclaims in a case involving U.S. Patent No. 10,519,668 (“the ‘668 Patent”). The decision sheds light on the importance of adhering to meet and confer obligations, as well as the consequences of non-compliance. Background:…
Articles Posted in C.D. California
Masimo v. Apple: District Court Excludes Lost Profits Damage Theory for Failure to Disclose
In this patent infringement action, Apple moved to exclude Masimo’s damage theory on lost profits for failure to disclose during discovery. As explained by the district court, Masimo presented its lost profits theory based on the equation: “Lost profits = Apple Watch units sold x Masimo’s per-unit profit.” Masimo claimed…
Executives’ False Statements Under Oath Regarding Cocaine Use Do Not Justify Terminating Sanctions
Plaintiff ChromaDex, Inc. (“ChromaDex”) filed a motion for terminating sanctions against defendant Elysium Health, Inc. (“Elysium”) based on admissions that Elysium’s executives lied in their depositions regarding one of the executive’s cocaine use. The production of text messages ignited the issue. Elysium had produced text messages from Elysium’s CEO’s phone…
District Court Denies Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Meet and Confer Prior to Filing Motion
In this patent infringement action, the City of Hope filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion without prejudice for failing to comply with the Local Rules meet and confer requirement. Central District Local Rule 7-3 provides that “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall…
COVID-19 Justifies Stay of Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review Where Review Had Not Yet Been Initiated by Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Plaintiff DivX, LLC (“DivX”) filed patent infringement actions against Netflix and Hulu asserting that both companies infringed various patents. Both defendants filed motion to stay their cases pending inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). As explained by the district court, starting in October…
Repeated Coaching at Deposition Leads to Monetary and Issue Sanctions
In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs Brian Horowitz and Creative Outdoor Distributors USA Inc. (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant Yishun Chen (“Yishun”) and his counsel, David Lin (“Lin”) for alleged misconduct that took place during the depositions of defendants. The court had previously granted a motion…
District Court Denies Ex Parte Motion to Compel Third Party to Produce Documents Where Plaintiff Waited too Long to File Motion
The plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) filed an ex parte application to compel compliance with a subpoena to produce documents against a third party to the action, MasterCard. Alexsam had first served a Rule 45 subpoena on MasterCard several months earlier but had not received the documents it requested. Alexsam contended…
District Court Denies Request to Change Expert Date Based on Change in Defense Counsel
Plaintiff Genes Industry, Inc. (“Genes”) filed a patent infringement action against Defendant Custom Blinds and Components, Inc. (“Custom”). The patent discloses a winding wheel for use on window coverings. Custom filed a motion to continue its expert report deadlines from November 28, 2016 to February 10, 2017, and to continue…
Plaintiff Cannot Take Back Venue Admission in Patent Infringement Action
Plaintiff Ecojet, Inc. (“Ecojet”) brought a patent infringement action against Defendant Luraco, Inc. (“Luraco”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE45,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”). After the litigation was pending for several months, Luraco filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer regarding venue. In its motion, Luraco…
Plaintiff Granted Dismissal Based on Covenant Not to Sue Even With Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter Pending
The plaintiff, Shipping and Transit, LLC (“Plaintiff”), filed a patent infringement action against Defendant Neptune Cigars, Inc. (“Defendant”), for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,415,207 (“the ‘207 Patent”) and 6,763,299 (“the ‘299 Patent”). The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the patents are directed to ineligible…