Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

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…

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…

Contact Us