Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review as “Toss Up”

The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) filed a motion to stay pending inter partes review” (“IPR”) after Boeing had requested that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) conduct an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618 (“the ‘618 patent”). Boeing argued that the asserted claims of the ‘618 patent…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Plaintiff’s Infringement Expert for Conflict of Interest

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Mobile”) filed a patent infringement action against LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. (“LG”). As trial approached, LG filed a motion to disqualify Mobile’s infringement expert, Dr. Bims, on the grounds of conflict of interest arising from his retention by LG to serve as its expert in connection…

Updated:

District Court Stays Case Pending Petition for Writ Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court

After the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court, the defendant filed a motion to stay the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of the petition for writ of certiorari. As explained by the district court, “[t]his case for patent infringement is back in this court…

Updated:

District Court Strikes “Shotgun Complaint” That Incorporated Allegations by Reference in Each Count

Lanard Toys Limited (“Lanard”) filed a patent infringement action against Toys “R” US. Lanard subsequently filed a four-count Amended Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury, both of which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. After the amend complaint was filed, the…

Updated:

Smartflash v. Apple: After $500M Verdict, District Court Grants New Trial on Damages Based on Improper Use of Entire Market Value Jury Instruction

After a jury returned a verdict against Apple, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The district court subsequently notified the parties pursuant to Rule 59(d) that it was considering granting a motion for a new trial for a reason not stated…

Updated:

District Court Lifts Stay after PTAB Confirms Eight Claims Even Though Defendant Planned to Appeal to the Federal Circuit

The district court had previously granted Defendant Respironics, Inc.’s (“Respironics”) unopposed motion to stay the patent infringement action filed by the plaintiff, Zoll, pending an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patent-in-suit, on which the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) had instituted review. When Respironics filed the motion to stay,…

Updated:

Court Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Where Plaintiff Merely Alleged That It Had All Substantial Rights to Patent

Verify Smart Corp. (“Verify”) filed a patent infringement action against Bank of America, N.A. (“BoA”), alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,285,648 (“the ‘648 Patent”). As part of its complaint, Verify claimed to have all substantial rights through an exclusive license. BoA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to…

Updated:

After Transfer, Case Is Stayed Pending IPR Even Though Only Three of Twenty-Two Claims Were at Issue in the IPR

Plaintiff ACQIS, LLC (“ACQIS”) filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Defendant EMC Corporation (“EMC”) had infringed claims in 11 patents owned by ACQIS. Specifically, ACQIS alleged that 20 EMC computer storage products infringe 22 claims from these 11 patents, including EMC products for…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Amend Complaint to Add New Patents Even Though Patents Had Not Issued at Time of Original Filing and New Products Had Become Available on the Market

Plaintiff West View Research (“West View”) filed five separate patent infringement complaints on the same date against various automobile manufacturers. Each action asserted a combination of patents, all from the same patent family, for a total of eleven asserted patents. The district ourt consolidated the five for purposes of discovery…

Updated:

After Claim Construction, District Court Allows Opposing Experts to Testify to Different Definitions of “Using” At Trial and the Jury Can Decide Who Had the Better Interpretation

The parties filed opposing motions against each side’s expert witness over a dispute between the parties as to what the word “use” means. In its Markman order, the district court had construed the term “Internet Protocol network” (“an Internet Protocol network,” “network utilizing at least one Internet Protocol,” and “a…

Contact Us