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”…
Articles Posted in District Courts
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…
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…
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…
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…
Court Declines to Stay Discovery Pending Motion to Dismiss Under Section 101 Because Court Does Not Believe That There Is an Immediate and Clear Possibility that Motion to Dismiss Will be Granted
The defendants filed a motion to stay discovery until the district court ruled upon its motion to dismiss pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. In their motion to stay, Defendants asserted that its motion to stay discovery should be granted because it is a dispositive motion to dismiss that is…
It Is Cold Out There: District Court Denies Joint Stipulation to Stay Case Pending Inter Partes Review — Twice
In consolidated patent infringement actions between Arctic Cat and Polaris, Artic Cat filed four petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two patents asserted by Polaris. Three days after the IPRs were filed, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the consolidated cases given Arctic Cat’s pending IPR petitions.…
District Court Allows Discovery to Re-Open to Permit Plaintiff to Compel Defendant to Produce Update Sales Records prior to Trial
Isola USA Corp. (“Isola”) moved to compel Taiwan Union Technology Corp. (“TUC”) to provide updated sales data in response to document requests an interrogatories. In response to this discovery, TUC had previously provided sales data on allegedly infringing products that covered a period up to December 31, 2014. Isola moved…