In this patent infringement action, the plaintiffs sought to exclude the defendant’s expert on invalidity and infringement. One of the grounds on which they sought to exclude the testimony was based on bias. The plaintiffs contended that the expert’s bias stemmed from his belief that he invented certain of the…
Raffel Systems, LLC (“Raffel”) filed a patent infringement action against Man Wah Holdings (“Man Wah”). Man Wah moved to dismiss the patent claims on the ground that Raffel did not possess title to the patents at the time the lawsuit was filed and therefore lacked standing to sue. As explained…
In this patent infringement action, AT&T filed a motion to compel certain litigation-funding discovery from the plaintiff, United Access Technologies, LLC (“UAT”). The district court reviewed documents relating to or from third parties regarding potential investments by those third parties in UAT’s lawsuits and communications to and from third parties…
Following Straight Path IP Group’s, the patent owner’s, unsuccessful appeal, Apple and Cisco moved for reasonable attorney’s fees. Although the district court reaffirmed the exceptionality of the patent owner’s prosecution of the case, the district court found that defendants’ fee requests were too high and directed the parties to submit…
In this patent infringement action between Guardant and Foundation Medicine (“Foundation”), Foundation moved to exclude the testimony of Guardant’s damage expert, Dr. Becker, on reasonable royalty damages. In his opinion, Dr. Becker applied on an apportionment factor of 50% in that he asserted the patents contributed at least 50% of…
Plaintiff DivX, LLC (“DivX”) filed patent infringement actions against Netflix and Hulu asserting that both companies infringed various patents. Both defendants filed motion to stay their cases pending inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). As explained by the district court, starting in October…
District Court Determines No Personal Jurisdiction Exists Under Rules (4)(k)(1) and (4)(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Where Plaintiff Could Show Only a Single Infringing Unit Was Sold in the State and Defendant’s Website and Other Activities Were Not Directed at Residents of the State by Stan Gibson…
After the jury concluded that LG Electronics had willfully infringed a patent held by Mondis Technology and awarded $45 million in damages, the district court let stand the willful infringement determination but vacated the damage award of $45 million. The district court concluded that the damage award was based on…
In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff intended to use a damage expert to support a “lost profits” measure of damages and/or a “reasonable royalty” measure of damages. Defendant moved to exclude the lost profits analysis because the damage expert ignored the testimony of Plaintiff’s corporate designee that contradicted his ultimate…
District Court Permits Ex Parte Communication with Former Employee and Co-Inventor of Plaintiff But Orders Defendants to Turn Over Certain Email Communications by Stan Gibson and Julia Consoli-Tiensvold In ICM Controls Corp. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Plaintiffs ICM Control Corp. (“Plaintiffs” or “ICM”) filed a letter motion objecting to ex…