Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

District Court Granted Voluntary Motion to Dismiss Against Named Defendant But Disallowed Reservation of Rights as to Unnamed Third Parties

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff Wright’s Well Control Services, LLC (WWCS) filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant Christopher Mancini pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) with prejudice, but with a “reservation of all rights and actions against co-defendant Oceaneering International, Inc., and any other parties and…

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 Denies Ex Parte Motion to Compel Third Party to Produce Documents Where Plaintiff Waited too Long to File Motion

The plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) filed an ex parte application to compel compliance with a subpoena to produce documents against a third party to the action, MasterCard. Alexsam had first served a Rule 45 subpoena on MasterCard several months earlier but had not received the documents it requested. Alexsam contended…

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 Denies Request to Change Expert Date Based on Change in Defense Counsel

Plaintiff Genes Industry, Inc. (“Genes”) filed a patent infringement action against Defendant Custom Blinds and Components, Inc. (“Custom”). The patent discloses a winding wheel for use on window coverings. Custom filed a motion to continue its expert report deadlines from November 28, 2016 to February 10, 2017, and to continue…

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 Excludes Damage Expert for Failure to Apportion But Gives Expert One More Opportunity to Supplement Report

In this patent infringement action, Plaid sought to exclude the entirety of the plaintiff’s damage expert’s, Robinson’s, reasonable royalty analysis as based on an apportionment “plucked out of thin air.” Yodlee opposed the motion and asserted that its apportionment methodology was justified by the facts of the case. The district…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Compel Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents

In this patent infringement action, Teva inadvertently produced documents to Sunovion. Teva subsequently attempted to claw back the documents under the parties’ protective order. Sunovion moved to compel the inadvertently produced documents. In analyzing the motion to compel, the district court noted that it had “reviewed the parties’ submissions, the…

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 Orders Production of Attorney-Client Communications Between Opinion Counsel and Trial Counsel Based on Advice of Counsel Defense

Plaintiff Krausz Industries Ltd. (“Krausz”) filed a motion for an order compelling Defendants Smith-Blair, Inc. and Sensus USA, Inc. (collectively “Smith-Blair”) to allow discovery into various attorney-client communications and work product related to an advice of counsel defense. Although the parties agreed that raising an advice of counsel defense can…

Contact Us