Having obtained a $1.5 billion judgment and an ongoing royalty against Marvell, Carnegie Mello University (“CMU”) sought to liquidated the ongoing royalty amount in the Final Judgment. In response, Marvell argued that the district court made clear in its decision that such ongoing royalties are to be dealt with as…
Plaintiff Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (“Andrulis”) filed a patent infringement action against Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”) alleging direct, induced, and contributory infringement. Celgene filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim. After Andrulis voluntarily dismissed the contributory infringement claim, the district court analyzed the claims for…
Plaintiff Nu Flow Technologies (2000) Inc. (“Nu Flow) filed a patent infringement action against Defendant A.O. Reed & Company (“A.O. Reed”) and ten Doe defendants based on two patents U.S. Patent No. 7,849,883 B2 (the ‘883 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,691,741 132 (the ‘741 patent). The ‘883 patent, entitled…
Digital Ally, Inc. (“Digital Ally”) filed a declaratory judgment action pertaining to patent infringement against Utility Associates, Inc. (“Utility”). Utility filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Digital Ally is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas. It sells advanced…
Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action and also filed an application to proceed in pro per and In Forma Pauperis. The defendants file a motion to dismiss the action based on false statements in the application. As the district court explained, “[t]he Application requires the applicant to detail all sources…
After a jury returned a verdict against Marvell for patent infringement, Carnegie Mellon (“CMU”) filed several motions, including for prejudgment interest, for supplemental damages, for enhanced damages, for an ongoing, increased royalty rate triple what the jury found, and for a permanent injunction. With respect to prejudgment interest, the district…
Plaintiff SecureBuy, LLC (“SecureBuy”) filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings pending resolution of a Covered Business Methods (“CBM”) review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”). When the motion was stayed, the PTAB had not yet granted review of the CBM petition. Before ruling on the stay request, the…
In this patent infringement case, the district court received a number of motions to strike portions of expert reports and to exclude the testimony of certain experts. As stated by the district court, it received the following: “Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report and Exclude the Testimony…
In this patent infringement action, Potter Voice submitted an expert declaration of David Klausner for the purpose of claim construction. Microsoft moved to exclude the declaration under Fed.R.Evid. 702. The district court explained the background of the patent as follows: In 1998, United States patent number 5,729,659 (the ‘659 patent)…
Plaintiff GPNE Corporation (“GPNE”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple. As part of its case, GPNE wanted to retain two experts, Ghobad Heidari and Kamran Etemad, and Apple objected for two reasons. First, as explained by the court, Apple argued that if Heidari and Etemad are given access to…