Close

Articles Posted in E.D. Texas

Updated:

SFA Systems v. Amazon: SFA Permitted to Amend Infringement Contentions Where Amendment Would Streamline Discovery and Prejudice to Amazon Would Be Minimal

SFA Systems (“SFA”) filed a patent infringement action against Amazon and twenty-six other defendants in 2011. SFA subsequently timely served its infringement contentions pursuant to the local rules in the Eastern District of Texas. After receiving discovery from Amazon, SFA requested that Amazon supplement its discovery responses to produce documents…

Updated:

Motion to Intervene Denied After Jury Verdict of Patent Infringement Where Third Party Had Notice of Case and Could have Intervened Sooner

After a jury determined that certain defendants induced infringement of the plaintiff’s patents by, among other things, selling unregulated and semi-regulated bus converters to third parties, such as Cisco, Cisco moved to intervene into the case. The district court explained that “[t]he jury found that Cisco, among others, was a…

Updated:

Motion to Exclude Damage Expert under Daubert Denied Where Expert Relied upon Incremental Profit and Cross-Examination Was Sufficient to Challenge Expert

Plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) alleged infringement of several patents against Best Buy Stores, L.P. (“Best Buy”) that pertain to stored value/debit cards. Best Buy moved to exclude the opinion of Alexsam’s damage expert, James L. McGovern, asserting that Mr. McGovern was applying a “rule of thumb” analysis that had no…

Updated:

Hitachi v. Top Victory: Court Declines to Apply Retroactively AIA’s Prohibition on the Use of an Accused Infringer’s Decision Not to Obtain Advice of Counsel as Evidence of Willful Infringement

Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co. LTD. (“Hitachi”) filed a patent infringement action against Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co LTD (“Top Victory”). As the case approached trial, the parties filed several motions in limine. In particular, Top Victory filed a motion in limine to preclude Hitachi from arguing to the jury that…

Updated:

Apple’s Motion to Transfer Action Brought by Core Wireless Denied Where Apple Failed to Identify Specific Witnesses Who Would be Inconvenienced if the Case Were Not Transferred

Core Wireless filed an action against Apple that alleged infringement of several patents in the Eastern District of Texas. Apple moved to transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). As explained by the court, “Core Wireless is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Grand…

Updated:

Recommendation to Grant Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Where Plaintiff Did Not Retain Sufficient Rights in Patent-in-Suit

Azure Networks, LLC and Tri-County Excelsior Foundation (“Plaintiffs,” “Azure” or “TCEF”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants, including Qualcomm and Marvell, among others. As explained by the court, “[t]he ‘129 Patent is entitled ‘Personal Area Network with Automatic Attachment and Detachment’ and discloses a Personal Area Network (“PAN”),…

Updated:

Russian Company Served Through Texas Secretary of State Held Proper Service Because the Russian Federation Unilaterally Suspended All Judicial Cooperation with the United States in Civil and Commercial Matters

Blue Spike, LLC (“Blue Spike”) filed a patent infringement action against Biolink Solutions LTD. (“Biolink”) and Biometric, LLC. Biolink is a Russian company that has no offices, employees, agents, distributors or related entities in Texas, but does business in Texas according to the complaint. Blue Spike served Biolink with the…

Updated:

Eastern District of Texas Orders Severance of Multi-Defendant Action Sua Sponte to Avoid One “Massive” and “Unmanageable” Trial

In a patent infringement action brought by Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) against thirteen separate defendants, grouped into seven issuers of electronic gift cards, the Eastern District of Texas decided to sever the defendants as the case got closer to trial. As explained by the court, “[t]his is the sixth lawsuit that…

Updated:

AT&T, Apple and Other Defendants Win Motion to Dismiss Claims of Indirect Infringement Even Though Claims Satisfied Form 18

Garnet Digital sued AT&T, Apple and several other defendants for patent infringement and included a claim for indirect infringement. Garnet Digital accused all of the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,379,421, which is entitled “Interactive Terminal for the Access of Remote Database Information.” Garnet Digital made the same allegation…

Updated:

Recommendation to Grant Summary Judgment in Favor of Fox and Other Studio Defendants Where Studios Were Selling Products That Incorporated a Process from a Domestic Manufacturer

Patent Harbor filed a patent infringement action against Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment (“Fox”) and other studios, such as The Weinstein Company LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Home Box Office, Inc., and Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. (collectively the “Studio Defendants”). The Studio Defendants allegedly infringed the patent by the…

Contact Us