The District Court granted Transcend’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of non-infringement and denied the patent owner’s, Glaukos’, motion on the issue of inequitable conduct. The District Court then set a bench trial on the issue of inequitable conduct. In light of these rulings, Glaukos argued that the…
Articles Posted in D. Delaware
District Court Stays Patent Infringement Action Pending Inter Partes Review Prior to Institution of Review by Patent Trial and Appeal Board
The plaintiff CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a patent infringement action defendants Dish Network Corporation, Dish DBS Corporation, Dish Network L.L.C., Echostar Corporation, and Echostar Technologies L.L.C. (collectively, “Dish Network”). CRFD also filed separate actions against defendants Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”), Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”), and Spotify USA Inc. (“Spotify”). CRFD alleges…
District Court Orders Submission of Expert Reports on Damages to Determine Proper Usage of Entire Market Value Rule
Invista North America S.A. R.L. (“Invistia”) filed a patent infringement action against M&G USA Corporation (“M&G”). As the case progressed toward trial, both parties exchanged expert reports on damages, which implicated the entire market value rule. As explained by the Federal Circuit, the entire market value rule is derived from…
Fairchild v. Power Integrations: Because of Right to Appeal, District Court Precludes Reference to Pending Reexamination Proceedings Even Though PTO Had Rejected All Claims
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corp.’s (collectively, “Fairchild”) moved in limine to preclude any reference to any pending reexamination proceeding or any completed reexamination proceeding of any asserted patent. Defendant Power Integrations, Inc. (“PI”) asserted that the fact the PTO finally rejected all asserted claims of the patent “is…
Rosebud v. Adobe: District Court Grants Summary Judgment of No Remedies Where Plaintiff Could Not Prove Actual Notice of Patent Application
Rosebud filed a patent infringement action Adobe and Adobe moved for summary judgment arguing that Rosebud had no remedy for its patent against Adobe. Adobe based its summary judgment motion on the argument that the patent-in-suit did not issue until after Adobe’s accused product was discontinued. As set out by…
Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec: Court Bifurcates and Stays Symantec’s Patent Misuse Defense
Intellectual Ventures (“IV”) filed a motion to bifurcate and stay discovery of Symantec’s patent misuse defense. The district court agreed with Intellectual Ventures. “While the Court views IV’s motion as essentially two motions one to bifurcate for a separate trial, see F.R.C.P. 42(b), and one to stay discovery, to which…
Motion to Strike Expert Testimony Denied Even Though Expert Had Never Used Product and Examined Only Selected Pieces of Source Code
In this patent infringement action, the defendant moved to exclude portions of the plaintiff’s (Dr. Bambos’) expert testimony. Defendant argued that Dr. Bambos lacks familiarity with the infringing products, relied too heavily on someone else to provide him with relevant segments of source code to review, and used the district…
Motion to Dismiss Granted Where Patent Claimed Unpatentable Subject Matter
Amazon.com (“Amazon”) filed a motion to dismiss Tuxis Technologies, LLC’s (“Tuxis”) complaint for failure to state a claim. Tuxis alleged infringement of the 6,055,513 (“the ‘513 patent”) against Amazon. As explained by the district court, the ‘513 patent relates to a method of upselling. The term “upsell” is defined in…
Permanent Injunction Granted After Jury Trial Where Plaintiff and Defendant Were Competitors and Plaintiff’s Products that Embodied Patent-in-Suit Constituted Core of Plaintiff’s Business
After a jury trial in which Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power”) obtained a verdict of infringement and validity in its favor against Fairchild Semiconductor (“Fairchild”), Power moved for a permanent injunction. In analyzing the motion, the district court first repeated the common test from eBay: “In order to obtain a permanent…
Walker Digital v. Google: Stay Pending CBM Review Denied Where Discovery Was Complete and Stay Would Prejudice the Plaintiff
After the PTAB instituted a CBM review of the patents-in-suit, Google sought a stay of the litigation pending resolution of CBM review by the PTAB. The district court explained that “[c]ourts consider four factors when deciding whether to stay litigation pending CBM review: (1) whether a stay will simplify the…