Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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,…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

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…

Updated:

PTAB Requires the Patent Owner to Attend Oral Argument

In Butamax Advanced Biofuels, LLC v. Gevo, Inc., the patent owner requested permission to be excused from the oral hearing. The patent owner cited the expense of having counsel prepare for and attend the hearing. Instead, the patent owner preferred to rest on its written response to the petition. The…

Updated:

Fujitsu v. Tellabs: The District Court Orders Additional Sanctions for Fujitsu’s Continued “Contemptuous Conduct”

Following the district court’s previous order granting a motion to compel against Fujitsu, and Fujitsu’s unsuccessful appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court ordered sanctions in the form of a civil penalty. As the district court explained, the civil penalty was designed to provide an incentive to motivate the…

Updated:

The PTAB Warns Attorney That Speaking Objections May Warrant Exclusion of Expert’s Testimony

In an inter partes review Medtronic Inc. et al. v. Troy R. Norred, M.D., the Petitioner sought guidance from the Board regarding the Patent Owner’s objections during the deposition of an expert appearing on behalf of the Patent Owner. According to the Petitioner, the Patent Owner made speaking objections and…

Contact Us