Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Three Strikes and You are Out: District Court Grants Summary Judgment on Lack of Standing, No Infringement and Invalidates the Patent

Plaintiff NOV filed a patent infringement action asserting that defendant Omron had infringed NOV’s patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,474,142 or the ‘142 Patent). Specifically, NOV alleged Omron’s oil rig automation control system has an automatic driller function that infringes one or more claims of the ‘142 Patent. After years of…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion in Limine Seeking to Preclude Advice of Counsel Defense Even Though Plaintiff Was not Able to Obtain Information about the Defense During Discovery

The Plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking the district court to preclude the Defendant from offering at trial any testimony regarding the Defendant’s opinion of counsel defense that was not disclosed during discovery. As explained by the district court, the Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendant selectively produced certain…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion to Lift Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Even Where Plaintiff Agreed to Not Pursue Claims That Were Subject to Review

Barco filed a patent infringement action in September 2011 against Defendants Eizo Nanao Corporation and Eizo Nanao Technologies, Inc. (“Eizo”), alleging that Eizo infringed various claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,639,849 (the ‘849 patent). After Barco filed a reissue application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”),…

Updated:

Rosebud v. Adobe: District Court Grants Summary Judgment of No Remedies Where Plaintiff Could Not Prove Actual Notice of Patent Application

Rosebud filed a patent infringement action Adobe and Adobe moved for summary judgment arguing that Rosebud had no remedy for its patent against Adobe. Adobe based its summary judgment motion on the argument that the patent-in-suit did not issue until after Adobe’s accused product was discontinued. As set out by…

Updated:

Court Denies Motion to Stay Pending New Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) Denied Where PTO Had Previously Declined to Institute an IPR on Asserted Claims and Trial Was Rapidly Approaching

The defendant, Samsung, had previously filed IPRs on several of plaintiff’s patents, which were granted and denied in part. After the plaintiff reduced its asserted claims to those that the PTO had declined to institute review, Samsung filed an additional IPR to challenging the asserted claims and moved to stay…

Updated:

Court Continues Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Even Though PTO Declined to Institute Review on Patent

The district court had previously stayed the patent infringement action between Nidec Motor Corporation and Broad Ocean Motor pending the PTO’s decision on whether to institute an inter partes review on three of the patents-in-suit. After the PTO declined to institute review on one of the patents, the plaintiff moved…

Updated:

District Court Grants Stay Before The PTO Institutes An IPR

In MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-3657 (N.D. Cal.), MLC filed its lawsuit on August 12, 2014, accusing Micron of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 (“the ‘571 patent”). On October 15, 2014, Micron answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and…

Updated:

Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec: Court Bifurcates and Stays Symantec’s Patent Misuse Defense

Intellectual Ventures (“IV”) filed a motion to bifurcate and stay discovery of Symantec’s patent misuse defense. The district court agreed with Intellectual Ventures. “While the Court views IV’s motion as essentially two motions one to bifurcate for a separate trial, see F.R.C.P. 42(b), and one to stay discovery, to which…

Updated:

Open Text v. Box: District Court Holds That Box Can Present Damages in the Form of a Fully Paid-Up Lump Sum Payment Even Though Such an Award Might Preclude a Later Injunction

As the Open Text v. Box patent case gets closer to trial, Open Text sought to preclude Box from asking the jury to award damages in the form of a fully paid-up lump sum that would cover the life of the patents-in-suit. Open Text argued that such a result would…

Updated:

Blue Spike v. Adobe: Court Grants Motion to Strike Infringement Contentions Where Contentions Failed to Crystalize Theory of the Case and Used an Open-Ended Priority Date

In this patent infringement action between defendant Adobe Systems, Inc. (“Adobe”) and plaintiff Blue Spike, LLC (“Blue Spike”), Adobe filed a motion to strike the infringement contentions (“ICs”) filed by Blue Spike. In the motion, Adobe contended that Blue Spike’s ICs fail to comply with the Patent Local Rules for…

Contact Us