Close

Articles Posted in D. Delaware

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Compel Production of Inventor Emails in Patent Infringement Case

In a recent discovery dispute in a patent infringement case, the district court denied the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce certain inventor emails that were withheld on the basis of the work product doctrine. The key issue was whether the plaintiff demonstrated that the emails, exchanged between…

Updated:

Key Evidentiary Rulings in Acceleration Bay v. Activision

In the ongoing patent infringement case between Acceleration Bay LLC and Activision Blizzard Inc., the district court recently issued an order resolving several important evidentiary disputes between the parties. This order provides guidance on the admissibility of various categories of evidence that will impact the damages case at the upcoming…

Updated:

Inmar Brand Solutions, Inc. v. Quotient Technology Inc.: District Court Denies Quotient’s Motion to Dismiss Under Step One of Alice

In the ongoing case of Inmar Brand Solutions, Inc. v. Quotient Technology Inc., the district court was tasked with conducting an analysis under the Supreme Court’s two-step test in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International to determine whether Inmar’s patented coupon-processing system, exclusively licensed from Intelligent Clearing Network, Inc. (ICN),…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion to Compel Documents That Were Clawed Back Finding that Defendant Waived Work Product Protection by Voluntarily Producing the Documents

The crux of this case revolves around a dispute over patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition filed by Nielsen (or Plaintiff) against Hyphametrics (or Defendant). At the heart of the issue in this motion were specific documents – experimental reports. These reports were initially produced by Hyphametrics to…

Updated:

Discovering the Precise Financial Stake of LLC Plaintiff’s Members and Litigation Funder: Court Rules in Favor of Defendants’ Motion to Compel Disclosure

In the case of Speyside Medical, LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC et al, the district court recently granted the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff, Speyside Medical, to produce information regarding its members and litigation funder. The district court found such information relevant, emphasizing the importance of understanding the precise…

Updated:

District Court Determines Litigation Funding Agreement That Provided Funds to Purchase Patents-in-Suit Discoverable as Relevant to Damages

In this patent infringement action, the district court analyzed whether a litigation funding agreement should be produced. After it reviewed the litigation funding agreement that the plaintiff had entered into with a litigation funder, the district court concluded that the funding agreement itself was not relevant to issues of standing.…

Updated:

Citrix v. Workspot: District Court Strikes Equitable Defenses Based on Knowingly False Statements

As the district court, explained the “case present[ed] the Court with a disturbing and unfortunate situation. Puneet Chawla, Defendant Workspot, Inc.’s (“Workspot”) co-founder, former Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”), and former member of the Board of Directors, sent harassing and threatening email messages to executives of Plaintiff Citrix Systems Inc. (“Citrix”),…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Damage Opinion That Used Cost Savings Approach and That Resulted in Ignoring The Smallest Salable Component

In this patent infringement action, Microchip accused Aptiv’s Dual Role Hub of infringing several the patents. As the district court explained, the Dual Role Hub is a media module that Aptiv manufactures and sells to automakers for incorporation into a car’s infotainment system through USB peripherals, such as a smart…

Updated:

District Court Denies Production of Documents Pertaining to Litigation Funding

In this patent infringement action, AT&T filed a motion to compel certain litigation-funding discovery from the plaintiff, United Access Technologies, LLC (“UAT”).  The district court reviewed documents relating to or from third parties regarding potential investments by those third parties in UAT’s lawsuits and communications to and from third parties…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Royalty Damage Expert for “Conservative” Estimate That Relied upon 50% Apportionment Figure

In this patent infringement action between Guardant and Foundation Medicine (“Foundation”), Foundation moved to exclude the testimony of Guardant’s damage expert, Dr. Becker, on reasonable royalty damages.  In his opinion, Dr. Becker applied on an apportionment factor of 50% in that he asserted the patents contributed at least 50% of…

Contact Us