In this patent infringement action between i-Tec Well Soultions, LLC (“i-Tec”) and Peak Completion Technologies, Inc. (“Peak”), the district court issued an unusual order as the case approached trial. With the case expected to be a jury trial, both sides were ordered to submit tailored jury instructions. The district court,…
Articles Posted in District Courts
Patent Acquisition Bar Precluding Plaintiff’s Counsel from Advising Any Clients on the Acquisition of Patents Granted Where Defendant Was Disclosing “Crown Jewel” Technology
In this patent infringement action, Defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (“Sirius”) sought a “patent acquisition bar” against plaintiff’s counsel from Freitas Tseng & Kaufman, LLP (“Freitas”). In seeking the bar, Sirius asserted that the Freitas attorneys who would gain access to Sirius’ confidential technical information should be barred from advising…
Motion to Strike Expert Testimony Granted to Preclude Expert’s “Logic Analysis” to Determine the Physical Structure of a Circuit but Expert Permitted to Opine That Logic of Accused Circuit Corresponds to Patent
Plaintiff Cobra International, Inc. (“Cobra”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants, including BCNY International (“BCNY”) alleging infringement of a patent for the design of lighted footwear. The defendants create children’s shoes that have a small electrical module with an integrated circuit mounted on a chip. As explained by…
Plaintiff Allowed to Amend Complaint to Include Willful Infringement Based on Allegation That Defendant Continued to Sell Infringing Products after Learning of Patent Through Service of Original Complaint
Englishtown, Inc. (“Englishtown”) filed a patent infringement action against Rosetta Stone, Inc. (“Rosetta Stone”) for alleged infringement of patents pertaining to language-learning products, software, online services and practice tools. Englishtown sought leave to amend its complaint to include an allegation of willfulness based solely on post-litigation knowledge and conduct. Rosetta…
Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Found Where Patent License Negotiations Reached an Impasse and NDA Did Not Preclude a Lawsuit
Plaintiff Biomet, Inc. (“Biomet”) filed a complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLC (“Bonutti”) seeking a declaration that the manufacture, use, or sale of Biomet’s products does not infringe on Bonutti’s patents. Bonutti filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R.…
Disclosure of Opinions of Counsel to Customers Waived Privilege as to the Opinions and the Subject Matter of the Opinions
Plaintiff The Procter & Gamble Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a patent infringement action against Clio USA, Inc. (“Clio”). Plaintiff moved to compel certain opinions of counsel and other documents concerning the subject matter of those opinions. In the litigation, Clio had produced to Plaintiff copies of two abridged opinions, which were…
Inequitable Conduct Claim Dismissed on Summary Judgment Motion Where Conduct of Patent Prosecutor Was Disputed and Did Not Require a Finding of Intent to Deceive
KFx Medical Corp. (“KFx”) alleged that Arthrex, Inc. (“Arthrex”) infringed three of its patents: United States Patent Number 7,585,311 (“311 Patent”), United States Patent Number 8,100,942 (“942 Patent”) and United States Patent Number 8,109,969 (“969 Patent”). All three patents share the same name: “System and Method for Attaching Soft Tissue…
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Granted Where Supplier of Allegedly Infringing Product Sued for Declaratory Relief After Its Customer Was Sued in a Different Jurisdiction
Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. “(Ball Metal”) filed a declaratory judgment action against CMI&J LLC (“CML&J”) for non-infringement and invalidity. CML&J moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending that it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Colorado. The declaratory judgment action centered on U.S. Patent No. 8,245,866…
Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Denied Where Agreement Was Reached as to the Amount of the Settlement But Party Struck Through Two Other Material Terms
Graco Childrens Products Inc. (“Graco”) filed a patent infringement action against Kids II, Inc. (“Kids II”). During discovery, Graco and Kids II agreed to discuss terms to settle the dispute. As part of that process, Graco’s in-house counsel sent an email to Kids II’s in-house counsel, with a settlement proposal…
Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Invalidity and “Divided Infringement” Denied as Premature Because Court Had Not Yet Ruled on Claim Construction
H-W Technology, L.C. (“H-W”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple and several other defendants including Amazon and Buy.com. H-W alleged that it had ownership of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,955, entitled “Internet Protocol (IP) Phone with Search and Advertising Capability” (the ‘955 patent). The 955 patent is directed to systems…