Close

Articles Posted in District Courts

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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”…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

Even though Defendant filed Disguised Daubert Motion that Court Called “Untimely” and “Lame,” the District Court Granted the Motion in Part to Exclude Expert from Opining on Legal Standards

In this patent infringement action, Defendant R/X Automation Solutions filed a motion in limine to exclude one of plaintiff’s experts. The district court concluded that the motion was an untimely Daubert motion because the district court had set a deadline for dispositive motions and Daubert motions. The district court was…

Updated:

District Court Excludes 15 Prior Art References Not Disclosed in Invalidity Contentions

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs filed motions in limine to exclude 15 prior art references that defendants intend to use to show the state of the art pertinent to the patents-in-suit. Defendants included the 15 references on a recent notice, but the references were not included on defendants’ third…

Updated:

Turf Wars: District Court Permits Expert to Use Replicas of Athletic Fields in Front of Jury

The plaintiffs, Fieldturf USA and Tarkett Inc. (collectively, “Fieldturf”) filed a patent infringement action against Astroturf LLC (“Astroturf”). In defense, Astroturf intended to present expert testimony on anticipation showing that certain Fieldturf technical information predated the patent-in-suit. Based on the technical information, Astroturf’s expert created replicas of the fields and…

Contact Us