The defendants in this patent infringement action sought the production of certain billing statements of the law firm representing CleanTech. The defendants argued that the billing statements were discoverable based on their inequitable conduct defense because a witness was unable to recall why certain information was not disclosed to the…
Patent Lawyer Blog
District Court Precludes Deposition of In-House Counsel Who Acted as Part of Trial Team Even Though Counsel Had Relevant, Non-Privileged Conversations Regarding Indemnity
After plaintiff, McAirlaids, requested the deposition of one of Kimberly-Clark’s (“K-C”) in-house litigation counsel, K-C filed a motion for a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to preclude the deposition of its in-house counsel, Vicki Margolis (“Margolis”), who is an active member of its trial team. Counsel…
PTAB: Claims for Method of Authenticating a Website are Patentable under Alice and Section 101
In a CBM petition filed by petitioners PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Bancorp, the petitioners sought review of U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191, which claims a method of authenticating a web page. The petition challenged the validity of claims under Section 101, 103 and 112. After finding that the ‘191 patent…
District Court Denies Motion to File Amended Complaint to Add Direct Infringement Claim
Plaintiff Kaneka Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed a patent infringement against SKC Kolon PI, Inc. (“SKPI” or “Defendant”) and SKC, Inc. (“SKC America”). After the district court issued a scheduling order setting, among other things, a final day to amend pleadings, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend its first amended complaint…
Reliance on the Same Prior Art Dooms Medtronic’s Attempt to Correct its Previously Rejected IPR Petition
In IPR proceeding involving Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive. Inc., the petitioner, Medtronic, file a petition seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 relating to a spinal implant and methods of spinal fusion using the implant. The petition was Medtronic’s third IPR petition challenging the validity of claims in the ‘156…
District Court Denies Daubert Motion Based on VirnetX as Exceeding the District Court’s Role as Gatekeeper
In this patent infringement action, Adobe filed a Daubert motion seeking to exclude the plaintiff’s damage expert largely based on VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 4548722 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2014). As explained by the district court, “Adobe does not seriously challenge Mr. Yurkerwich’s qualifications as an…
Controlling, or Having the Ability to Control, the Preparation of a Petition Leads to a Finding that the Non-Party Is a Real Party-In-Interest and that the Petition is Time Barred
In IPR proceeding First Data Corporation v. Cardsoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC, the petitioner, First Data Corporation, attempted to file a petition on April 30, 2014 seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 6,934,945 assigned to Cardsoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC. On May 20, 2014,…
District Court Grants Motion to Compel Internal Counsel Communications of Plaintiff That Did Not Pertain to Litigation
Dell moved to compel the production of certain internal counsel communications at the plaintiff, MLR. MLR had refused to produce the documents, claiming work product protection. As explained by the district court, “[i]n the circumstances presented here, which are the result of MLR’s choices, the established policies underlying the work…
The PTAB Authorizes the Patent Owner to File Its Motion for Leave to Take Discovery of General Electric on Possible Privity with a Customer-Defendant
In General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., the patent owner requested authorization to file a motion for leave to take discovery of petitioner General Electric regarding whether GE is in privity with a defendant in litigation with the patent owner. Should the patent owner prevail and prove that GE is…
District Court Precludes Admission of Inter Partes Review Proceedings in Front of Jury But Permits Consideration as part of Willfulness Determination
In this patent infringement action between Ultratec, Inc. (“Ultratec”) and Sorenson Communications, Inc. (“Sorenson”), Sorenson sought to admit evidence of an inter partes review proceeding of the patent-in-suit. Sorenson wanted to admit the evidence to contradict the plaintiff’s use of the presumption of validity of the patent. As explained by…