Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination Where Defendant Did Not Pursue Inter Partes Review

After filing an ex parte reexamination with the Patent Office, the defendant filed a motion to stay the action pending the ex parte reexamination. In analyzing the request to stay the action, the district court noted that “[t]he decision of whether to stay this case during the potential ex parte…

Updated:

Personal Web v. IBM: IBM’s Motion to Compel Documents from Privilege Log Denied Where Motion Was Filed After Discovery Cut-Off

In this patent infringement action, IBM filed a motion to compel production of certain documents that were withheld as privileged. IBM contend that time was of the essence when it filed its motion. The district court was not persuaded by the urgency of the request or that time “was of…

Updated:

Plaintiff Cannot Take Back Venue Admission in Patent Infringement Action

Plaintiff Ecojet, Inc. (“Ecojet”) brought a patent infringement action against Defendant Luraco, Inc. (“Luraco”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE45,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”). After the litigation was pending for several months, Luraco filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer regarding venue. In its motion, Luraco…

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…

Updated:

District Court Orders Plaintiff to Supplement Damage Information Provided in Federal Rule 26 Initial Disclosures Where Plaintiff Failed to Compute an Actual Damage Number

In this discovery dispute in a patent infringement action, Frontgate contended that Balsam Brands, Inc. (“Balsam”) failed to adequately respond to an interrogatory seeking information about Balsam’s damages. As explained by the district court, Balsam’s response stated that it: (1) “intends to seek lost profits on the 1,662 Flip Trees…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction Where the Plaintiff Did Not Show Specific Facts of Lost Sales or Injury to Goodwill

Plaintiff, D Now, Inc. (D-Now), obtained an exclusive license to U.S. Patent No. 8,795,020, which claims a bubble blowing tube. D Now filed a patent infringement action against defendants TPF Toys Limited and TPF Toys LLC (collectively “TPF”). As explained by the district court, “[b]oth parties sell the bubble blowing…

Updated:

District Court Orders Modification of Protective Order to Allow Plaintiff to Use Defendant’s Confidential Information in Opposing Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)

Defendant Baker Hughes Incorporated (“Baker Hughes”) filed five inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) asserting that the plaintiff Lubrizol’s patents were invalid because of obviousness. Baker Hughes and a third-party, Flowchem LLC (“Flowchem”) had previously produced documents in the underlying case that they…

Contact Us