Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

FlatWorld v. Apple: Motion to Vacate Claim Construction Denied Even after Parties Reach Settlement

After the district court issued a Markman ruling, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. The plaintiff, FlatWorld, then moved to vacate the claim construction order. The district court noted that it had only adopted FlatWorld’s proposed construction for one…

Updated:

Invalidity Expert Excluded Where Expert Failed to Conduct a Proper Written Description Analysis

Plaintiff Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) moved to strike the invalidity expert report of the defendant, CQG. TT made two arguments its motion: “(1) that Dr. Mellor failed to conduct a proper written description analysis because, according to TT, he incorrectly focuses on features that are not recited in the…

Updated:

District Court Partially Denies Stay Motion Where CBM Review Did Not Encompass All Patents-in-Suit

Plaintiffs Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc. (collectively, “Versata”) filed a patent infringement action in July 2012 against defendant Callidus Software, Inc. (“Callidus”) The patents were all characterized as “covered business method patents.” Callidus filed a challenged to the validity of the patents-in-suit in August 2013, pursuant to…

Updated:

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record Denied Because It Was Filed on the Eve of Trial

In this patent infringement action between Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. (“Golden Bridge or GBT”) against Apple, Golden Bridge’s counsel moved to withdraw as counsel of record because Golden Bridge had failed to pay the legal bills. As explained by the court, “[s]ince this case appeared on the undersigned’s docket, Plaintiff…

Updated:

Court Rules That Crime-Fraud Exception Trumps Attorney-Client Privilege Where Patent Holder Made Series of False Representations to the Patent and Trademark Office

HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”) moved for a finding that this patent infringement action is “exceptional” under the Patent Act’s fee-shifting provision which authorizes the award of attorney fees and costs to prevailing parties in “exceptional cases.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. The district court had previously found that…

Updated:

Court Declares Parties Are Over-Litigating the Case and Orders Parties to Reduce Disputed Jury Instructions or Face Reduced Trial Time Based on Reasonableness of Proposed Disputed Instructions

In this patent infringement action, the district court concluded that the parties were over-litigating the case and matters were only getting worse as trial got closer. “The Court’s previously stated concern that the parties are over-litigating this case is growing. 18 motions in limine were filed, and 15 were denied.…

Updated:

After Parties Engaged in “Abusive Litigation Tactics,” Court Orders Clients to Consent to the Filing of Any Further Motions to Compel, Attend the Hearings on Such Motions and Pay the Any Ordered Sanctions

After the district court granted a motion to compel in which it overruled the defendants’ objections and ordered the defendants to provide complete responses to the interrogatories and to produce all responsive documents, the defendants provided supplemental responses but renewed the overruled objections and asserted additional objections that were not…

Updated:

Plaintiff Precluded from Using Deposition Testimony of Defense Expert Where Plaintiff Procured the Absence of the Expert

Novartis sought to use the deposition testimony of defendant’s expert at trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(4)(B). As explained by the district court, “the Rule provides that a party may use the deposition of a witness for any purpose” if “the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of hearing…

Updated:

Versata v. SAP: Stay of $390 Million Judgment Denied Even Though PTAB Found Patent Invalid

After the jury returned a verdict of approximately $390 million against SAP and the verdict was affirmed on appeal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) preliminarily invalidated the patent (subject to appeal to the Federal Circuit). As a result, SAP moved to stay the execution of the judgment or,…

Updated:

Motion to Redact Transcripts in Patent Case Denied Where Information Was Disclosed in Open Court

In this patent infringement action, both parties moved to redact information from the transcripts and both motions were unopposed. The district court found that the information should be redacted because it had been disclosed in open court. In reaching this conclusion, the district court noted that there were procedures in…

Contact Us