Close

Articles Posted in District Courts

Updated:

Bushnell v. Cisco: District Court Dismisses Willfulness Allegations Solely Based on Knowledge of Patents by Acquired Entity

Cisco moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s patent infringement complaint pre-lawsuit willfulness allegations. As the district court explained, the allegations in the first amended complaint asserted: “(i) that an investor of both the owner of the ‘951 Patent and of OpenDNS informed unspecified employees or agents of OpenDNS that certain OpenDNS…

Updated:

District Court Grants Supplemental Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees after Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal on Appeal

After the district court dismissed plaintiff’s patent infringement claims, finding the patents directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and awarded attorneys’ fees based on the exceptional case doctrine, the Federal Circuit affirmed both determinations. The defendant filed a supplemental motion for attorneys’ fees seeking to recover attorneys’ fees for the appellate…

Updated:

District Court Dismisses Complaint with Prejudice for Plaintiff’s Failure to Participate in Discovery and for Failure to Comply with Court Orders

In this patent infringement action, the defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to participate in discovery and for ignoring several court orders. The motion explained that dismissal sanctions were appropriate in the light of, among other things, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders,…

Updated:

Motion to Disqualify Based on Representation of “Sister” Companies Denied Where There Was No Showing of Actual Conflict or Possession of Confidential Information

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, International Designs Corporation, LLC (“IDC”), moved to disqualify the counsel for defendant Hair Art Int’l, Inc. (“Hair Art”).   IDC moved to disqualify counsel for Hair Art on the grounds that Hair Art’s counsel also represented/represents an entity named Halo Couture, LLC, a California…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Dispositive Motion

In this patent infringement action, the defendant, Playmonster LLC (“Playmonster”), requested that the district court stay discovery during the pendency of its forthcoming dispositive motion. As part of its request, Playmonster contended that a dispositive motion “would be the most efficient resolution of this case,” and that a stay of…

Updated:

District Order Issues Sanctions Deeming Defendant’s Summary Of Infringing Sales Established As True Where Defendant Failed to Comply With Multiple Court Orders

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Stuebing Automatic Machine Co. (“Stuebing”) filed a motion for violation of multiple discovery orders against the defendant. As part of the motion, Stuebing sought issue sanctions, including to have certain sales information deemed established. Stuebing had previously served multiple discovery requests, including interrogatories…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Opinion Of Damage Expert On Licenses That Were Not Economically Comparable

The plaintiff, Bayer, moved to exclude the opinion of the defendant’s damage expert, Dr. Rausser, for failing to show that the licenses that he used for his reasonable royalty analysis were technologically or economically comparable to the license resulting from the hypothetical negotiation.  The district court agreed with Bayer on…

Updated:

Qualcomm v. Apple: District Court Excludes Apple’s Experts’ Testimony Where Relied Upon Licenses Were Not Technologically Comparable

In the ongoing litigation war between Qualcomm and Apple, spanning multiple forums around the country, Qualcomm moved to exclude Apple’s technical experts’ reliance on certain license agreements by asserting that the agreement involved technology that was not sufficiently comparable.  After reviewing the license agreements, the experts’ opinions, and the law,…

Updated:

Motion to Disqualify Based on Joint Defense Agreement Denied Where Agreement Did Not Create Implied Attorney-Client Relationship

In a patent infringement action, Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.’s (collectively, “Takeda”) filed a motion to disqualify Baker Botts, L.L.P. (“Baker Botts”) from representing Defendants Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively, “Zydus”). Takeda moved to disqualify Baker Botts from representing Zydus based on…

Updated:

Virtual Patent Marking: Does It Work? One District Court Says It Might

National Products, Inc. (“NPI”) filed a patent infringement action Akron Resources, Inc. (“Akron”), among others.  The parties filed several cross motions for summary judgment, including a motion for summary judgment based on the failure to mark. As explained by the district court, the parties did not dispute that: “1) NPI…

Contact Us