Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC (“Innovatio”) filed patent infringement actions against various hotels, coffee shops, restaurants and supermarkets for the use of wireless Internet technology located throughout the United States. Innovatio filed a motion for entry of a protocol for collection of electronic evidence and a preliminary ruling on the admissibility…
Articles Posted in District Courts
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Denied Even Though Defendant Contended that Patent Infringement Claim Contradicted the Specification of the Patent-In-Suit
Intendis, Inc. (“Intendis”) and Dow Pharmaceutical Sciences, Inc. (“Dow”) filed a patent infringement action against River’s Edge Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“River’s Edge”). Dow owns the patent-in-suit and Intendis is the exclusive licensee. According to the district court, “[t]he ‘383 patent is listed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as covering…
AT&T Mobility Successfully Dismisses Claims for Direct Equivalent Infringement and Indirect Infringement
Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action again AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T Mobility”) for “either literally or by equivalents, and either directly or by inducement or contribution” infringing the patent-in-suit. AT&T moved to dismiss. AT&T made three arguments in its motion. First, AT&T argued that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed…
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple: The Court Denies Multimedia’s Late Attempt to Amend Its Complaint to Add an Additional Patent
In December 2010, Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a patent infringement action against a number of defendants asserting infringement of a number of patents. Although MPT asserted the 5,500,678 (the “‘678 patent”) against several defendants, as well as other patents against several defendants and Apple, it did not assert the…
Court Denies Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert on the Absence of Non-Infringing Substitutes Even Though Opinion Was Based on Report of Another Expert
In this patent infringement action, the defendant, Faro Technologies (“Faro”), moved to exclude the plaintiff’s expert with respect to the expert’s opinion regarding the absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives as a basis for lost profits. Faro moved to exclude on the basis that the plaintiff’s expert economist lacks the expertise…
SAP v. DataTern: Summary Judgment Granted Where Patent Holder Failed to Serve Infringement Contentions
SAP AG and SAP America (“SAP”) filed a motion for partial summary judgment against DataTern for failing to serve infringement contentions charting the patents-in-suit against SAP’s accused products. The district court’s order specified that the infringement contentions were required to be served on or before March 23, 2012. In analyzing…
Multi-District Panel Centralizes Case at Request of Plaintiff and Moves All Actions to Illinois
Plaintiff Forest Laboratories, Inc. (“Forest”) moved to centralize their litigation in the District of Delaware. The litigation consisted of two action pending in the District of Delaware and the Northern District of Illinois. The defendants in the Delaware action did not oppose centralization, but one of the defendants suggested selection…
Apple v. Motorola: Apple Wins Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
Apple moved for summary judgment with respect to Claim 5 of Motorola’s U.S. Patent No. 6,175,559 (the ‘559 patent). Claim 5 of the ‘559 patent provides for a A method of generating preamble sequences in a CDMA system, the method comprising” steps of forming an outer code, forming an inner…
Defense Expert Report on Non-Infringement Stricken Even Though Plaintiff Waited Until Just Before Trial to Move to Strike and Had Possession of Report for Nearly a Year
In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Hoyt Fleming (“Fleming”) moved to strike certain paragraphs of the report of Escort’s expert on its defense of non-infringement. One of Escort’s defenses to the charge of infringement was that Escort’s devices lock out false signals by using a process different from that described…
Research in Motion: Purported Inventor’s Late-Filed Lawsuit Dooms Claim of Co-Inventorship Because Laches Based on Economic Prejudice Bars the Claims
In this dispute over the inventorship of a patent that is integral to BlackBerry products, the district court held a bench trial on the applicability of laches. The issue at the bench trial turned on whether RIM suffered economic prejudice as a result of plaintiff’s delay in bringing the lawsuit.…