Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

District Court May Preclude Evidence from Parent Company Where Parent Company Was Dismissed from Case and Then Refused to Provide Discovery

When this patent infringement action began, the plaintiff explained that it was concerned that it would not be able to obtain important discovery if Ricoh Company Ltd. (“RCL”), which is the parent company of the defendants, Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (“REI”) and Ricoh Americas Corp. (“RAC”) were dismissed as a party.…

Updated:

As Part of Protective Order, District Court Orders Prosecution Bar and Covenant Not to Sue for New Patents Acquired by Patent Holder

In this patent infringement action, a dispute arose between Plaintiff Blackbird Tech LLC (“Blackbird”) and the defendants over the terms of proposed protective orders to govern the use of confidential information produced. Although the parties agreed that a protective order was appropriate, they disagreed on the level of access by…

Updated:

District Court Precludes Evidence of Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Denial of Institution of Inter Partes Review at Trial

As this patent infringement action proceeded to trial, Google filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Google’s petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims of the patent-in-suit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) denial of institution of those petitions. Google had previously filed petitions with…

Updated:

District Court Strikes Infringement Contentions and Sanctioned Plaintiff for Taking Inconsistent Positions

The defendant, Echoworx, brought a motion to strike ZixCorp’s infringement contentions. ZixCorp had served its original infringement contentions on Echoworx, contending that the elements of the patent-in-suit are software limitations, and stated that it intended to supplement its infringement contentions after Echoworx produced source code for each of Echoworx’s accused…

Updated:

District Court Strikes Documents That Were Not Produced During Discovery Even Though Documents Were Publically Available

In this patent infringement action, Mobile Telecommunications Tech., LLC (“MTel”) filed against Blackberry Corp., MTel moved to exclude certain exhibits that were archived press releases published by RCR Wireless and SkyTel webpage screenshots of advertisements. MTel objected that these exhibits are inadmissible because they have not been authenticated by a…

Updated:

Court Declines to Modify Judgment Based on Collateral Proceedings before the PTAB Finding Claims of Patent-In-Suit Invalid

Summary: In the decision referenced below, the court declined to modify a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure even though the PTAB had found several claims of the patent-in-suit invalid. After a trial and an appeal to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the royalty…

Updated:

Failure to Institute Inter Partes Review Is Not Grounds for Common Law Estoppel to Prevent Defendant from Re-Litigating Issues Raised before the Patent Office

The defendant filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Office. As part of its application, it submitted a 65 page brief along with several hundred page s of accompanying evidence. The plaintiffs submitted a 60 page brief along with its own evidence in response. After the…

Updated:

District Court Grants Permanent Injunction after Summary Judgment Ruling in Favor of Patent Holder Where Defendant Was Direct Competitor and Patent Holder Had Lost Sales and Market Share

After the district court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of patent infringement, the district court addressed whether a permanent injunction was appropriate. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,065,794 (‘794 Patent), which is titled “Security Enclosure for Open Deck Vehicles,” relates to storage management devices, or “trunk…

Updated:

District Court Refuses to Recognize “Apex” Doctrine for Documents Created by Inventor and Global Leader of Company

The defendant filed a motion to compel, seeking a wide array of discovery against Plaintiffs Dyson, Inc. and Dyson Limited (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to produce emails belonging to James Dyson (“Dyson”). Plaintiffs asserted that Dyson is Plaintiffs’ “global leader” and one of the named inventors on the patents-in-suit. Although plaintiffs agreed…

Updated:

Experts Ordered to Produce Draft Reports Exchanged with Other Experts

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, BRP, alleged three counts of patent infringement against Arctic Cat concerning snowmobile frame construction and snowmobile rider positioning. BRP alleged patent infringement by at least 91 Arctic Cat snowmobiles regarding two frame patents and infringement by at least 95 Arctic Cat snowmobiles regarding…

Contact Us