Close

Articles Posted in District Courts

Updated:

Downstream Distributors’ Request for Stay of Litigation Denied Where Stay Would Interfere with Plaintiff’s Ability to Effectively Litigate

Plaintiff Internet Machines LLC (“iMac”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants including, among others, PLX Technology, Inc., ASUS Computer International and CDW Corp. alleging infringement of three patents that pertain to PCI Express switches. PLX manufactures the accused products while the remaining defendants distribute the products, incorporate the…

Updated:

Defense Attorneys Disqualified for Hiring Plaintiffs’ Trial Technician from a Previous Case Involving the Same Patents

Plaintiff Tyco Healthcare Group and United States Surgical Corporation moved to disqualify defendant Ethicon Endo-Surgery’s attorneys of record (the law firm of Akin Gump). Tyco based the motion to disqualify on the ground that Akin Gump had improper access to privileged and confidential information of Tyco because Akin Gump hired…

Updated:

The District of Massachusetts Recognizes the Need For More Courtroom and Trial Experience for Relatively Inexperienced Attorneys

In an effort to encourage more participation from less experienced attorneys, the District of Massachusetts has several judges adopting standing orders that strongly encourage the participation of relatively inexperienced attorneys. Judge Casper is the most recent judge in the District of Massachusetts to adopt such a standing order. Judge Casper…

Updated:

Motion to Lift Stay Pending Inter Partes Reexamination Denied Where Reexamination Was Not Complete

The district court issued a stay pending reexamination of an inter partes reexamination of the patent at issue in the litigation. Plaintiff filed a motion to lift the district court’s stay pending re-examination based on the argument that the reexamination was nearly complete because an office action had issued invalidating…

Updated:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct Granted Where Merely Failing to Provide References Insufficient to Establish Specific Intent to Deceive Patent and Trademark Office

The parties filed cross-motions for summary on the issue of inequitable conduct. The district court had previously denied summary judgment motions on the issue of inequitable conduct but that was prior to the Federal Circuit’s decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Circ. 2011)…

Updated:

Paying for Reduction to Practice of an Invention Does Not Make One a Co-Inventor of the Invention

Defendant was the sole named inventor of the patent in suit. Plaintiff brought a claim for inventorship, alleging that he was the co-inventor of the patent. The parties cross moved for summary judgment and for sanctions. The defendant and plaintiff maintained a business relationship for approximately 15 years, with plaintiff…

Updated:

Anonymous Letter Enough to Establish Jurisdiction for Declaratory Judgment Action

Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement after it received a letter from IP Navigation Group (“IP Nav”). The letter invited the plaintiff to engage in a licensing discussion regarding the patent or patent of IP Nav’s client, which remained anonymous. After filing the declaratory judgment, the plaintiff sought…

Updated:

Hot Potato: Case Is Transferred from Florida to California and Then Back to Florida

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action in the Middle District of Florida. Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California. Defendants emphasized in its transfer motion that the Eastern District of California was clearly more convenient than the Middle District of Florida. Ten months…

Updated:

Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss Based on Facts Outside the Complaint

In a patent case filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by Illinois Tool Works (“ITW”) against Elektromanufaktur Zangenstein Hanauer GmbH & Co. KGaA (“EMZ”), EMZ moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as well as for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). EMZ…

Updated:

Permanent Injunction Granted Against Verizon’s Video on Demand Service Even Though Plaintiff Was Not a Direct Competitor

After ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. (“ActiveVideo”) prevailed on a patent infringement action against Verizon Communications, Inc. (“Verizon”) before a jury, ActiveVideo moved for a permanent injunction. ActiveVideo moved to enjoin Verizon’s further use of Verizon’s Video on Demand (“VOD”) services offered through its FiOS system. Verizon opposed the motion and also…

Contact Us