Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Cascades v. Samsung: Court Denies Motion to Compel Deposition of Trial Counsel but Grants Request to Produce Fee Agreement

Defendant Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) filed a motion to compel plaintiff Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC (“Cascades”) to produce additional documents and to require its trial counsel to appear for a deposition. Samsung moved to compel the deposition of Cascade’s trial counsel based on the argument that Cascades’s principal, Anthony Brown,…

Updated:

Farstone v. Apple: With “far too many disputes,” Court orders face-to-face meet and confer to resolve motion to compel

Apple filed a motion to compel discovery from Farstone Technology, Inc. (“Farstone”) by way of a Joint Stipulation as required by the court’s local rules. After the court reviewed the joint stipulation, it found that there were significant problems and that too many disputes remained for the court to resolve.…

Updated:

No Vacation in Florida: Court Orders Notice of Vacation Designation Stricken

In this patent infringement action between Natural Chemistry LP and Orenda Technologies, Inc. (“Orenda”), Orenda’s counsel filed a notice of vacation designation, which the district court characterized as a notice of unavailability. In considering the notice, the district court began by noting that “[t]he rules of this Court do not…

Updated:

PTAB Rejects Samsung’s Bid to Join Its Own Previously Initiated IPR Proceeding As An Unjustified “Second Bite At The Apple”

In IPR2015-00821, Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., sought to join its Petition with a recently initiated IPR proceeding involving the same patent, parties, and counsel. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641, is directed to a music enabled communication system. Specifically, Petitioner requested inter…

Updated:

District Court Orders Submission of Expert Reports on Damages to Determine Proper Usage of Entire Market Value Rule

Invista North America S.A. R.L. (“Invistia”) filed a patent infringement action against M&G USA Corporation (“M&G”). As the case progressed toward trial, both parties exchanged expert reports on damages, which implicated the entire market value rule. As explained by the Federal Circuit, the entire market value rule is derived from…

Updated:

The PTAB Allows Discovery “Of Persons Who Provided Direction To, Or Had The Authority To Provide Direction To, Petitioner Or Its Counsel In Relation To This Proceeding”

In IPR2014-01201, Patent Owner ThermoLife International, LLC sought discovery regarding whether Purus Labs, Inc., a company related to the Petitioner John’s Lone Star Distribution, Inc., should have been identified as a real party-in-interest. Specifically, the Patent Owner sought documents: (1) “showing the corporate and management structure of Purus Labs, including…

Updated:

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Section 101 Denied Where Defendant Failed to Include Challenge in Invalidity Contentions

In this patent infringement action between Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. (“Good) and Defendant MobileIron, Inc. (“MobileIron”). Two months before the trial, MobileIron moved to dismiss the case based invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, found the…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Compel and for Sanctions Where CFO Could Not Be Compelled to Testify on Broad Deposition Topics Including Royalties, Affirmative Defenses, Infringement Contentions and Invalidity Contentions

Plaintiff Stoneeagle Services, Inc. (“Stoneeagle”) filed a motion seeking sanctions against Defendant Premier Healthcare Exchange, Inc. (“PHX”) for failing to provide a prepared corporate representative to testify pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In response to the motion, PHX did not dispute that its corporate…

Updated:

BBQ Patent Must Face The Heat: Petition Is Not Barred When Filed Within 1 Year of the Filing of a Waiver of Service in the District Court

On October 13, 2014, The Brinkman Corporation filed a petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,381,712 directed to a barbecue grill that allows simultaneous gas grilling and charcoal-fueled grilling. A&J Manufacturing, the owner of the ‘712 patent, challenged Petitioner’s standing to file the IPR based on the fact…

Updated:

Another One Bites the Dust: Action Dismissed for Lack of Standing Where Plaintiff Could Not Prove Ownership of the Patent-In-Suit

America’s Collectibles Network (“ACN”) filed a patent infringement action in which it claimed to own U.S. Patent No. 8,370,211 (the “211 Patent”). It brought this action against the Genuine Gemstone Company (“Genuine Gemstone”). Genuine Gemstone filed a motion to dismiss contending that it is the rightful owner of the 211…

Contact Us