Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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)…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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,…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment on Laches Defense Where Defendant Could Not Establish Prejudice from Plaintiff’s Delay in Filing Suit

The court explained the facts as follows: The defendant, CrestaTech, was founded by Mihai Murgulescu and George Haber in 2005. Its initial products included a receiver for satellite radio and a television platform. CrestaTech entered the television tuner market in September 2011, when it acquired the assets of Xceive Inc.,…

Updated:

Cisco v. Sprint: Declaratory Judgment Action Dismissed Where Cisco Could Not Show Case or Controversy Based on Suits Against Customers and Aggressive Litigation and Licensing Tactics

Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) filed two declaratory judgment actions against Sprint seeking to invalidate six Sprint patents and seeking a declaration of non-infringement of seven Sprint patents. Cisco is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in…

Updated:

Webinar: Venue Transfer Strategies in Patent Litigation – How Will TC Heartland Change the Landscape?

I am pleased to be a panel member at the Strafford webinar described below. The webinar promises to be informative – I hope you will consider joining us. – Stan Gibson Venue Transfer Strategies in Patent Litigation – How Will TC Heartland Change the Landscape? Determining Whether and When to…

Updated:

District Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Damage Expert Report Where Expert Relied Upon Comparable Licenses

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the defendant’s damage expert. The motion sought to exclude portion of the defendant’s expert report on damages, in particular the “market share reasonable royalty analysis” which was based on licenses for the patents-in-suit. As the district court explained, “the…

Contact Us