Defendant Murphy USA Inc. (“Murphy”) filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to certain claim U.S. Patent No. 6,076,071 (“the ‘071 Patent”) and one claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,513,016 (“the ‘016 Patent”) on the grounds that the patents are directed to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Supreme Court’s Decision in Teva Does Not Require Federal Circuit to Review Immaterial or Improper Fact-Finding under a Clear Error Standard
After an appeal to the Federal Circuit, Defendant Arthrex, Inc. (“Arthrex”) filed a motion to reopen the judgment under FRCP 60(b). Arthrex premised its motion on the argument that the judgment should be reopened in light of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,…
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,…
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.…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…