Close

Articles Posted in E.D. Texas

Updated:

Court Concludes That Pre-Suit Notice for Willfulness Can Occur Even if Notice Was Provided by Third-Party and Not Patent Owner

Arigna filed a patent infringement action against various vehicle manufacturers that alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,397,318 (“‘318 Patent”). The ‘318 Patent is direct toward a voltage control oscillator for use in a microchip incorporated in radar modules provided by vehicle parts manufacturer Continental. After Toyota notified Continental of…

Updated:

VirnetX v. Apple: Delay of Five Months Justifies Denial of Motion to Amend Judgment of More Than $400 Million

In this long running patent dispute, the district court denied Apple’s motion to amend the judgment based on a five month delay. The district court explained the long running history of the case as follows: “Nearly 10 years ago, VirnetX sued Apple, alleging Apple’s FaceTime and VPN on Demand features…

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 Denies Motion for Exceptional Case and for Attorney’s Fees after Trial

After the defendants Ingenico S.A.’s, Ingenico Corp.’s, and Ingenico Inc.’s (the “Ingenico Defendants”) prevailed at trial, the defendants filed a Motion to Declare this an Exceptional Case and For Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. The district court began its analysis by noting that “[d]istrict courts may determine…

Updated:

District Court Precludes New Substitute Witness for Failure to Timely Disclose

As trial approached in this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, 511 Innovations, Inc., filed a motion to exclude a witness at trial, Tim Benner from testifying at trial. The motion asserted that the defendant, Samsung, “did not make any written disclosure of Dr. Tim Benner as a potential witness, or…

Updated:

District Court Stays Case Pending Inter Partes Review After Non-Petitioning Defendant Agrees to be Bound by Estoppel Provisions

In a previous order, the district court granted a motion to stay pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) but deferred ruling on the Motion to Stay with respect to EMC Corporation “until EMC Corporation has filed a Notice with the Court indicating whether it is bound by the statutory estoppel provisions…

Updated:

District Court in the Eastern District of Texas Orders Retention and Production of Participants in Jury Research

In keeping with the standing order issued by Judge Gilstrap for jury trials that strongly discouraged jury research in the Eastern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Love recently issued a similar order for patent case pending in the Eastern District of Texas. In the order, Judge Love notified the parties…

Updated:

District Court Rules That Claim Construction Requested For First Time During Trial Is Waived

During the trial, the plaintiff, Arthrex, requested that the district court construe the term “proximal end” in certain of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,821,541 (“the ‘541 patent”). The district court determined that the request for a claim construction was way too late. The district court began by noting that…

Updated:

Court Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Case or Controversy Even Though Patent Holder Did Not Provide Covenant Not to Sue

Tech Pharmacy filed a patent infringement action against Defendant Alixa Rx LLC and Defendant Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC d/b/a Golden LivingCenters (collectively, “Defendants”). Tech Pharmacy subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint to add the Fillmore Defendants as named defendants with respect to the misappropriation of trade secret, breach…

Updated:

District Court Strikes Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Doctrine of Equivalents Because They Contained Blanket Assertions That Did Not Comply with the Local Patent Rules

The Defendants filed a motion to strike the Plaintiff’s infringement contentions, including their contentions under the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”), for failing to comply with the Local Patent Rules (“P.R.”). The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff’s contentions did not comply with P.R. 3-1(d) because the Plaintiff made “impermissible blanket assertions…

Contact Us