Following up on the district court’s previous ruling barring the use of jury questionnaires, the district court addressed the issue of whether any Internet research of the potential jurors should be permitted. After analyzing the reasons to issue an outright ban on such research, the district court explained that it…
Patent Lawyer Blog
District Court Declines to “Reverse” Bifurcate Trial to Try Damages before Patent Infringement and Calls Motion “Baseless”
California Home Spas, Inc. (“CHS”) filed a motion to bifurcate the trial between damages and infringement and asserted that the damage trial should proceed first. As noted below, the district court denied the request finding that bifurcation is unusual and that defendant had not justified the unusual procedure in this…
After Settlement, District Court Declines to Vacate Sanctions Order Requested by Joint Motion from All Parties
After all parties agreed to settle the case, the parties jointly moved to vacate a sanctions order. The district court declined to vacate the sanctions order, even though plaintiff’s counsel had apparently complied with the order, because the order was entered by a prior judge in a detailed ruling. After…
District Court Denies Motion to Present Live Video Testimony at Trial
In this patent infringement action, defendant Dynamic Drinkware, Inc. (“Drinkware” or “Defendant”) filed a motion to permit it to present live video testimony at trial, or, in the alternative, to take the deposition of a non-party named Dan Blondal for use at trial. The plaintiff, National Graphics, opposed the motion…
Samsung v. Nvidia: District Court Bifurcates Trial in Two Phases with the First Phase to Determine Infringement and Damages and the Second Phase to Determine Validity of the Patents
The plaintiff, Samsung, filed a motion for an order regarding the presentation of evidence. Samsung’s proposal included a “six-stage” process for presenting the evidence. In support of the proposal, Samsung argued that the “six-stage” process would help the jury understand the complex issues it would need to decide. The defendant…
District Court Precludes Plaintiff from Presenting Damage Theories That Were Not Disclosed in Rule 26(a) Disclosures
The plaintiff, Radware, planned to present damages theories in its closing argument seeking more than twice the damages that its retained expert on damages computed. The district court noted that “[w]hile expert testimony is not always required to prove damages, any damages theory must have evidentiary support. Radware had a…
District Court Requires Plaintiffs to State Whether “Plain Meaning” Encompasses Defendants’ Proposed Claim Constructions
In this patent infringement action, the defendants asked the district court to compel the plaintiffs to provide constructions for disputed claim terms identified by the parties under the Local Patent Rules. Defendants identified 8 claim terms that they contended require construction. For each term that the defendants identified, the plaintiffs…
Partial Summary Judgment Granted on Failure to Mark Where Defendant Stipulated That Plaintiff Practiced the Patent-In-Suit
Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (“Metaswitch”) filed a motion for partial summary judgment to limit Genband US LLC’s (“Genband”) damages based on a failure to mark. In support of its motion, Metaswitch argued that partial summary judgment should be granted because: (1) Genband makes and sells products that practice the patents-in-suit, (2)…
Oracle v. Google: District Court Rejects Jury Questionnaire and Orders Parties to Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Ban Internet Research of Prospective Jurors
As the re-trial in the Oracle v. Google case approaches, both parties requested an opportunity to use a jury questionnaire followed by a limited, one hour oral voir dire. The district court reviewed the proposed questionnaire and found that it would not save time and was likely suggested to permit…
District Court Declines to Exclude Damage Expert Even Though Expert Relied Upon Information Not Disclosed During Discovery
Plaintiffs Equistar Chemicals, LP and MSI Technology, LLC accused Westlake Chemical Corporation (“Westlake”) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,064,163. The asserted patent relates to a method of making polyolefin-based adhesive resins used for bonding to or bonding together polyolefins and polar materials. Westlake retained Christopher Bakewell as a damages expert,…