Close

Articles Posted in District Courts

Updated:

Carnegie Mellon v. Marvell: Marvell Loses $1.17 Billion Jury Verdict and Jury Finds Marvell’s Infringement Willful After Court Precludes Marvell from Relying on Its Own Patents as a Defense

In the patent infringement action brought by Carnegie Mellon University (“Carnegie Mellon” or “CMU”) against Marvell Technology Group, LTD. (“Marvell’), the jury returned a verdict in favor of Carnegie Mellon in the amount of $1.17 billion, finding that Marvell had infringed two patents owned by Carnegie Mellon. The jury also…

Updated:

Plaintiff Had Standing to Pursue Patent Infringement Action Against AOL and Google Where It Had Acquired All Substantial Rights to the Patent-In-Suit

Plaintiff Suffolk Technologies, LLC (“Suffolk”) brought a patent infringement action against AOL and Google. Suffolk’s complaint alleged that “AOL and Google have infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,082,835 (135 patent) entitled “Internet Server and Method of Controlling an Internet Server.” The ‘835 patent claims a method of controlling an internet server…

Updated:

Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple: Motion to Strike Expert’s Equivalence Analysis Denied Where Defendants Were Merely Disagreeing With Expert on the Underlying Facts

In December 2010, plaintiff Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against several defendants, including Apple, LG and Canon. The complaint accused the defendants of infringing several patents pertaining to video compression technology. The district court subsequently granted Canon’s motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion. Prior…

Updated:

Federal Circuit’s Akamai Decision Begins to Impact Current Cases as Court Grants Leave to Amend Inducing Infringement Allegations

With the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18532 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2012), the elements for proving inducing infringement changed significantly. As a result, we can expect that a number of plaintiffs in pending patent cases will seek to…

Updated:

Apple Settles with HTC: What Does It Mean for the Smartphone Wars?

Over the weekend, Apple and HTC settled all of the long running patent suits that both companies had filed against each other in multiple jurisdictions. Although few details of the settlement were released in the two sentence press release that included brief quotes from HTC and Apple, the companies did…

Updated:

District Court Stays Patent Case Pending Reexamination Despite Argument That Backlog at PTO after America Invents Act Would Slow Reexamination

Defendants BRP US Inc. and Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. (“Bombardier” or “BRP”) filed a motion to stay pending the inter partes reexamination of the patents-in-suit asserted by Polaris Industries, Inc. (“Polaris”). Polar manufactures recreational vehicles, including snowmobiles and Polaris obtained patents for rear suspension technology for snowmobiles. Polaris asserts the…

Updated:

District Court Strikes Both Parties’ Excessive Exhibit Lists and Deposition Designations Prior to Trial

Carnegie Mellon University (“Carnegie Mellon”) filed a patent infringement action against Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. (“Marvell”). As the parties proceeded to trial, both parties filed exhibit lists, deposition designations and objections to the exhibits and the deposition designations. In all, the parties submitted 2700 separately listed exhibits, which both parties…

Updated:

PB&J Software Patent Infringement Claims Dismissed with Leave to Amend for Failure to Identify a Product

PB&J Software (PB&J) filed a patent infringement action against defendant Backup Agent. PB&J is the assignee of the 7,356,535 patent (the ‘535 patent) and asserted that Backup Agent was infringing, inducing others to infringe and/or was contributorily infringing at least one claim of the patent by offering services and licensing…

Updated:

Multimedia Patent Trust Is Not Permitted to Add New Products in Final Infringement Contentions Based on Court’s Claim Construction Order

On December 20, 2010, Plaintiff Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a patent infringement action against Defendants Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), LC Electronics, Inc., LC Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LC Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LC”), and Canon USA, Inc. and Canon, Inc. (collectively “Canon”). The complaint alleged that Defendants are liable…

Updated:

Microsoft v. Motorola: District Court Denies Motorola’s Summary Judgment on Microsoft’s Claim for a RAND License

Motorola moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss Microsoft’s claim for a reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) license agreement to be determined by the district court. As explained by the district court, “Microsoft and Motorola are both members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) and the International Telecommunication…

Contact Us