The defendants filed a motion for leave to have the forensic expert report of Curtis Rose considered as affirmative evidence. The defendants timely served Rose’s expert rebuttal report but sought to use his opinions as affirmative evidence, despite missing the deadline for doing so. According to defendants’ motion, the Rose…
Articles Posted in District Courts
District Court Denies Request for Finding of Exceptional Case Where Plaintiff Pursued and Lost Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Moblize contended that TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc (“TDE”) either knew or should have known that its motion for preliminary injunction was meritless and that it was brought for the improper purpose of harassing Moblize. In its motion, Moblize asserted that “TDE’s actions were plainly designed to increase the cost…
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Denied Where Complaint Alleged Sufficient Facts to Establish Injury-in-Fact
Defendant’s filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) motion, contending that Plaintiffs lacked standing because no case or controversy existed at the time Plaintiffs filed the complaint. Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs had suffered an “injury in fact.” The “injury in fact” element of standing requires “an invasion…
District Court Declines Request to Vacate Claim Construction Order after Parties Enter into Consent Judgment
Canvs filed a patent infringement action in 2014 asserting that Nivisys induced and contributed to the infringement of its patent through the sale of TACS and TACS-M products. After a lengthy stay, the district court held a Markman hearing and before the district court took any action related to the…
District Court Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Where Co-Owners of Patent Were Not Joined in Original Complaint But Permits Potential Amendment to Add Co-Owners
Cobra International, Inc. (“Cobra”) filed a patent infringement action against Defendants for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,821,858 (“the ‘858 patent”). Cobra alleged that the ‘858 patent was issued to Allan J. Stone, who became “the owner” of the patent, and that Stone assigned the patent to Cobra. The district…
District Court Denies TRO and Preliminary Injunction Where Speculation on Future Harm Did Not Show Likely Irreparable Harm
Plaintiff SATA GmbH & Co. KG (“Plaintiff”) sought an ex parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Zhejiang Refine Wufu Air Tools Co., Ltd. (“Wufu”) and Prona Tools, Inc. (“Prona”) (collectively, “Defendants”) committed trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and design patent infringement…
District Court Administratively Terminates Motion to Dismiss Because of Pending Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”)
In this patent infringement action, Watson Laboratories, Inc.’s (“Watson”) moved to dismiss several counts of the complaint filed by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited (collectively, “Jazz”). Watson moved to dismiss these counts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the “Risk Mitigation Patents”…
Plaintiff Seeks to Substitute Damage Expert after Expert Retires
In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff sought to substitute its damage expert because its current damage expert had retired. The plaintiff also sought to withdraw the retired expert’s damage report. The Magistrate Judge construed this as a request to extend the discovery deadline. The Magistrate also determined that there…
Amazon Seeks Motion in Limine Requiring Plaintiff to Remove Statements on Website Prior to Trial
As the case between Milo & Gabby, LLC and Amazon moved closer to trial, Amazon filed several motions in limine, including a motion to force the plaintiffs to remove statements from its websites, which Amazon contended were inaccurate and prejudicial. Amazon also contended that the statements on the website could…
WARF v. Apple: Motion to Exclude Live Witness Granted Where Apple Had Previously Sought to Rely Solely on Deposition Testimony
As the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) patent infringement case against Apple approached trial, Apple attempted to call a witness live that it had previously informed WARF’s counsel would be called by deposition. Apple’s counsel had previously asked that Patrick McNamara be allowed to appear by deposition in order to…