Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Motion to Strike Expert on Invalidity Denied Where Development Documents Were Disclosed Sufficiently in Final Invalidity Contentions

Plaintiff Baxter International (“Baxter”) sued CareFusion Corporation and Becton, Dickson and Company (“Defendants”) for infringement of three medical infusion pump patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,764,034 (the ‘034 Patent), 5,782,805 (the ‘805 Patent), and 6,231,560 (the ‘560 Patent). Baxter moved to strike portions of the Defendants’ invalidity expert, including asserting that…

Updated:

District Court Determines Settlement Agreements in Patent Litigations Are Not Protected by the Common Interest Privilege and Should be Produced

In this patent infringement action, the defendant moved to compel the production of settlement license agreements as part of its reasonable royalty analysis. The plaintiff opposed the request on the grounds that the agreements were protected by the common interest privilege and were not relevant. The district court disagreed. Turning…

Updated:

District Court Denies Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Meet and Confer Prior to Filing Motion

In this patent infringement action, the City of Hope filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion without prejudice for failing to comply with the Local Rules meet and confer requirement. Central District Local Rule 7-3 provides that “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment for Lack of Marking Where Plaintiff Marked Packaging with Patent Numbers But Not the Product Itself

As explained by the district court, Zadro Products, Inc. (“Zadro”) sued Feit Electric Company (“Feit”) for patent infringement alleging that Feit infringed on two of Zadro’s patents: United States Patent No. 8,162,502 (“the ’502 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 8,356,908 (“the ’908 Patent”). Zadro alleged that one of Feit’s…

Updated:

When AI Invents: Is the Invention Patentable?

In a decision published on April 27, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office determined that only a human can be considered an inventor. So, who owns the patent when artificial intelligence makes the invention? What are the practical and logistical complications inherent in artificial intelligence-created inventions? With technology…

Updated:

District Court Extends Fact Discovery Deadline to Permit Additional Inspection of Source Code prior to Submission of Expert Reports

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”) filed a motion seeking (1) a court order compelling Defendant Netflix Inc. (“Netflix”) to provide PMC with on-site access to Netflix’s source code after the close of fact discovery or, in the alternative, (2) an extension of the fact…

Updated:

Not Patent Misuse to License U.S. Patents in Foreign Jurisdictions for “Administrative Convenience”

The defendant, IBG, contended that the plaintiff, Trading Technologies (“TT”) committed patent misuse (rendering its patents unenforceable) when it tied licenses to its U.S. patents to sales of products in foreign jurisdictions where IBG did not hold any patents. TT moved for summary judgment on the patent misuse defense. As…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Damage Expert’s Reliance on Incremental-Value Analysis

In this patent infringement action, defendant Athenahealth, Inc. (“Athenahealth”) moved to exclude the plaintiff CliniComp International Inc.’s damage expert testimony of Dr. Nisha Mody, which included a check on the reasonableness of the damage calculation based on an incremental-value analysis. As explained by the district court, Dr. “Mody’s damages model…

Contact Us