Close

Articles Posted in E.D. Texas

Updated:

Court Denies Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Employee Expert Even Though Employee Expert Testified at Deposition That His Report Contained No Opinions and Repeatedly Invoked the Attorney-Client Privilege During Deposition

Defendant, Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”), identified and disclosed an employee as an expert pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and submitted several disclosures for the employee expert as well. Plaintiff moved to exclude the employee expert’s disclosures on grounds of (a) improper hearsay, (b) undisclosed opinions regarding prior art, (c) unreliable opinions, (d)…

Updated:

Plaintiff Prohibited from Offering Evidence of Defendants’ Overall Economic Status and Profitability During Patent Infringement Trial

In this patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Texas between SimpleAir and a number of defendants, including Apple, the defendants filed a motion in limine to preclude SimpleAir from referencing the revenue or profits associated with Defendants’ products or Defendants’ overall economic status, profitability, or relative financial…

Updated:

Eastern District of Texas Limits Plaintiff to 40 Claims Across 10 Patents But Orders Dell to Respond to Interrogatory Seeking Non-Infringement Contentions Prior to Claim Construction

Plaintiff, Round Rock Research (“Round Rock”), filed a motion to compel non-infringement contentions from Defendant Dell (“Dell”) and Dell moved to limit the number of asserted complaints brought by plaintiff. Round Rock asserted ten patents against 125 products of Dell and Dell contended that Round Rock had asserted approximately 82…

Updated:

Even Though Claims Did Not Satisfy Machine-or-Transformation Test, Patent Not Held Ineligible Because the Claims Were Not Directed to an Abstract Idea

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that all claims of the patent-in-suit was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims did not satisfy the machine-or-transformation test and otherwise disclosed an abstract idea. The patent-in-suit is directed to a method for computing Current Procedural Technology (“CPT”) from…

Updated:

Owner of 9-1-1 Network’s Motion to Compel Supplemental Infringement Contentions Denied

Plant Equipment (“Plant”) filed a patent infringement action against Intrado over a patent that describes a system and method for routing incoming calls through the use of a central data manager over a wide network to multiple call centers having multiple remote terminals. Intrado provides technology for the 9-1-1 call…

Updated:

Microsoft and Google Strike Back: Declaratory Judgment Action Remains in Delaware Even Though Defendant Had Sued 450 Microsoft and Google Customers in Texas

Microsoft and Google sued Geotag in the District of Delaware for a declaration that their customers did not infringe a Geotag patent, “Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information,” and that the patent was invalid. Geotag had sued in excess of 450 companies in the Eastern District of…

Updated:

Verizon’s Inequitable Conduct Defense Survives Challenge

In a patent case filed in the Eastern District of Texas by Eon Corporation IP Holdings, LLC (“Eon”) against Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), along with other defendants, Eon moved to dismiss Verizon’s inequitable conduct counterclaims and strike its inequitable conduct affirmative defenses. Magistrate Judge Love recommended that Eon’s…

Updated:

Court Grants TiVo’s Motion to Compel Clawed Back E-Mail and Sanctions Defendant AT&T For Failing to Justify That E-Mail Was Privileged

Plaintiff TiVo brought an emergency motion to compel production of an e-mail that defendant AT&T produced and then clawed back pursuant to a protective order agreed to by the parties. During a deposition, TiVo marked an e-mail as an exhibit and questioned the deponent for several minutes about the e-mail…

Updated:

Multidistrict Litigation: The Future of Multi-Defendant Cases After the America Invents Act?

The plaintiff filed multiple patent infringement actions against seven different defendants in many different district courts. The plaintiff moved to centralize the patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where there were seven actions pending in five separate districts. The responding defendants all opposed centralization. Based on the briefing…

Updated:

Motion to Compel Financial Records for Products Shipped Outside of the United States Denied Where Such Sales Did Not Fall within Section 271 of the Patent Act

Internet Machines LLC (“iMac”) filed a patent infringement action against Alienware Corporation and PLX Technology, Inc. (“PLX”) and several other defendants alleging infringement of two patents pertaining to PCI Express switches. With respect to PLX, iMac moved to compel the production of various sales documentation for all sales of the…

Contact Us