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…
Articles Posted in District Courts
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.…
Expert on Dispute over Inventorship Permitted to Rely on Section 102(f) to Establish Purported Inventor Did Not Make Significant Contribution to the Invention
In this dispute over inventorship of a patent, Affymetrix (“Affymetrix”) and Gregory Kirk (“Mr. Kirk”) sought to correct U.S. Patent Nos. 7,510,481 and 7,612,020 to add Mr. Kirk as one of the inventors on the patents. The patents are directed to a method and an apparatus for conducting genetic testing…
Apple v. Motorola: Apple Provides Counsel Free of Charge to Inventor to “Prepare” for Deposition and Judge Posner Rules That No Bona Fide Attorney-Client Privilege Was Created
In one of several patent battles that Apple is waging across the country against Google’s Android operating system, Motorola moved to exclude the testimony of one of the inventors of the patent-in-suit. As part of determining this motion, the district court, Judge Posner, requested that Apple answer several questions in…
Inequitable Conduct Defense Dismissed Where Defendants Did Not Even Purport to Identify an Allegedly Fraudulent Document Submitted to the PTO
Zep Solar Inc. (“Zep”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants. Two of the defendants, Lightway Green new Energy Company, LTD (“Lightway”) and Brightway Global LLC (“Brightway”) answered and counterclaimed with an allegation of inequitable conduct. Zep moved to strike or dismiss the counterclaim and affirmative defense. As the…