Close

Articles Posted in District Courts

Updated:

District Court Disqualifies Defense Counsel Where Law Firm Previously Did Work for Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Plaintiff Before Subsidiary was Acquired

The plaintiff, The Hillman Group, Inc. (“Hillman”), moved to disqualify Cooley LLP (“Cooley”) in this patent infringement action based on its relationship with Minute Key that is now wholly owned by Hillman.  Cooley, which had represented Minute Key throughout its acquisition by Hillman, now represented the defendant in this case,…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion for Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Conducted No Investigation Prior to Filing Patent Infringement Suit

WPEM filed a complaint against SOTI alleging that SOTI’s MobiControl Speed Lockdown technology infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,148,762. WPEM alleged infringement based upon its review of a user manual for version 11 of Speed Lockdown. When it answered the complaint, SOTI pointed out that version 10 of Speed Lockdown predated…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment on Willfulness Where Defendant Had No Knowledge of the Patent Prior to the Filing of the Lawsuit

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) software infringed the 7,885,981 patent (“the ‘981 Patent”), which pertains to data processing in relational computer databases. Microsoft filed a motion for summary judgment. After denying the motion with respect to infringement, the district court turned to issue of willfulness. The district court…

Updated:

Court Finds Attorneys in Contempt of Court for Violating Protective Order Where Attorneys Shared Confidential Materials Under Joint Defense Agreement

In this patent infringement action, the parties filed a joint motion for a stipulated protective order where they agreed that they could designate certain documents and information produced in the case as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Trial Counsels’ Eyes Only.” The protective order also provided that the confidential information…

Updated:

Maxell v. Apple: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Claim for Induced Infringement

In this patent infringement action, Apple filed a motion to dismiss Maxell’s induced infringement claims. In the motion, Apple asserted that the complaint did not plausibly allege Apple had “specific intent” to induce infringement, arguing that the complaint only cited broadly to Apple’s website and user manuals, without alleging how…

Updated:

District Court Finds Patents Invalid for Inequitable Conduct Because Inventor Withheld Material Information Of Prior Sales From USPTO And Litigation Misconduct Justified Inference of Non-Disclosure with An Intent to Deceive

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff Total Rebuild (“Total”) asserted that Defendant PHC (“PHC”) infringed claims of United States Patent No. 8,146,428 (“the ’428 Patent”), which is directed to systems and methods for safely testing devices and components under high-pressure. The district court conducted a bench trial on inequitable conduct…

Updated:

Motiva v. HTC: Allegations of Willful Blindness Sufficient to Defeat Motion to Dismiss a Claim for Willful Infringement

HTC filed a motion to dismiss Motiva’s claim for willful infringement. HTC asserted that Motiva has failed to adequately allege that HTC had knowledge of the patents-in-suit. HTC also argued that Motiva’s factual allegations of willful blindness are insufficiently specific and otherwise “unsupported” as an evidentiary matter to state a…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Expert’s Opinion on What He Believed a PTO Examiner Would Have Done Had the Plaintiff Disclosed Additional Information to the PTO as Speculative

In this patent infringement action, the Plaintiff moved to exclude the defendant’s expert, Mr. Carmichael, arguing that his testimony should be stricken because Mr. Carmichael “improperly opines on what he believes a PTO examiner would have done in a specific situation had he or she had additional information Carmichael had…

Updated:

Patent Licensee Has Standing to Pursue Patent Infringement Claim Against Patent Licensor/Owner Where Patent Agreement Granted Exclusive License And Did Not Carve Out Patent Owner’s Products

Diamondback is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,810,035, entitled “Disposable Setting Tool” (the ‘035 Patent). Diamondback has been selling its patented setting tools and those setting tools practice and embody one or more claims of the ’035 Patent. Repeat Precision approached Diamondback about obtaining a license to…

Updated:

Acceleration v. Activision: District Court Excludes Damage Expert For Claiming That Non-Accused Products Were Non-Infringing Alternatives

Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration”) filed a patent infringement suit against Activision Blizzard Inc. (“Activision”) alleging that versions of its popular video games, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, and Destiny infringed certain of its patents. The trial in the action was postponed when it was not clear as to whether…

Contact Us