Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

The Problem with Backup Tapes: District Court Orders Retention of Old Backup Tapes for Ongoing Litigation

In this patent infringement action pending in a multi-district litigation, one of the defendants moved the district court for an order allowing the defendant to destroy old backup tapes. Defendant ICM, Inc. (“ICM”) moved for an order permitting it to destroy old backup tapes that contain electronic business information of…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion to Strike Damage Expert Where Damage Expert Did Not Serve Report Prior to Court Deadline

In this patent infringement suit, Defendants and Counterclaimants James Stephens and Spectrum Laboratories, LLC (“Spectrum”) moved to strike the report of Plaintiff’s damages expert, Robert Taylor. Spectrum argued that the Plaintiff did not designate Mr. Taylor as an expert before the expert designation deadlines set by the district court expired.…

Updated:

Applying New Proportionality Requirements, Court Grants Motion to Compel and Orders Production of Unredacted Tax Returns and Financial Statements

In this patent infringement action, Slide Fire Solutions, LP (“Slide Fire”) moved to compel discovery responses from Bump Fire Systems (“Bump Fire”). Bump Fire also requested a protective order to prevent the disclosure of certain discovery, including sensitive trade secrets and financial information. With respect to the financial information, the…

Updated:

Chestnut v. Apple: District Court Puts Plaintiff to the Test–Proceed on Limited Number of Claims or Continue Stay pending Inter Partes Review

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff asserted claims from two different patents against Apple. Apple filed an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) and moved to stay the case pending the IPR. After the district court stayed the case pending the PTAB’s decision…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion to Exclude Proceeding before PTAB during IPR But Allows Admissions and Arguments Made to PTAB to go before the Jury

The plaintiff, Magna, filed a motion in limine to exclude references to Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings. The defendant, TRW, filed a response, arguing that evidence was relevant to multiple issues at trial, including, but not limited to, the history of the asserted patents, prosecution history estoppel, the scope of…

Updated:

Defendants’ Motion Seeking to Depose Opposing Counsel Denied Where Defendants Could Not Show That Information Was Unavailable from Another Source

After the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for patent infringement, the defendants contended that they uncovered during discovery a series of e-mails demonstrating that in 2011, plaintiff engaged plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Alan Fisch, to negotiate the sale of its patent portfolio to third parties. Defendants subsequently moved to compel…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss under Section 101 Even Though Two Other District Courts Had Founds Patents Ineligible

In this patent infringement action, the Defendants filed motions for partial summary judgment of invalidity with respect to two of the patents at issue in the case. The defendants argued that two district courts had already found the two patents at issue in the case patent ineligible under section 101…

Updated:

Evidence of Copying Admissible in Patent Infringement Trial to Prove Nonobviousness

Metaswitch moved to exclude evidence of copying from a patent infringement action filed against it by Genband. Genband asserted during the pretrial process that it was seeking to introduce evidence of copying as an indication of nonobviousness. The district court determined that evidence of alleged copying should be admitted “because…

Updated:

District Court Rules Plaintiff Need Not Come Forward with Evidence of Priority Date Earlier than Patent Application Until Defendant Produces Clear and Convincing Evidence of Invalidating Prior Art and Summary Chart Is Not Sufficient

Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”) filed a patent infringement action against CalAmp Corp. (“CalAmp”) asserting that CalAmp infringes the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,346,876 (“the ‘876 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,737,989 (“the ‘989 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,756,885 (“the ‘885 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,671,727 (“the ‘727 Patent”), and U.S.…

Contact Us