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…
Patent Lawyer Blog
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…
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…
Plaintiff’s Violation of Protective Order Results in $40,000 in Sanctions for Disclosing Confidential Information from U.S. Litigation in a Lawsuit in China
SIMO Holdings Inc. (“SIMO”) prevailed on its patent infringement claims against defendant Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Limited (“uCloudlink”) at trial. SIMO asked the district court twice to use confidential uCloudlink documents produced in pretrial discovery in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit in Shenzhen, China between SIMO subsidiary Skyroam Shenzhen…
District Court Awards Attorney’s Fees After Plaintiff Filed Infringement Action Based on Patent Claims That Arose From Patent Family That Previously Had Claims Invalidated
After it prevailed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, ShopperChoice argued that no reasonable patentee in the plaintiff’s position could have believed that Claim 11 of 261 patent covered patent eligible subject matter at the time suit was filed. ShopperChoice based its argument on the prior opinion of…
Citrix v. Workspot: District Court Strikes Equitable Defenses Based on Knowingly False Statements
As the district court, explained the “case present[ed] the Court with a disturbing and unfortunate situation. Puneet Chawla, Defendant Workspot, Inc.’s (“Workspot”) co-founder, former Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”), and former member of the Board of Directors, sent harassing and threatening email messages to executives of Plaintiff Citrix Systems Inc. (“Citrix”),…
Expert Testimony Stricken Where Expert Did Not Show Non-Infringing Alternatives Were Available in the United States
In this patent infringement action, DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“DUSA”) sought to strike the testimony of Biofrontera’s expert witness, Professor Harry Moseley, for his reliance on a non-infringing alternative, the Paterson lamp. DUSA asserted that the testimony should be stricken because the Paterson lamp had never been available in the United…
District Court Determines No Common Interest Privilege for Communications with Litigation Funder
Plaintiff Midwest Athletics and Sports Alliance LLC (“MASA”) filed a patent infringement action against Ricoh USA, Inc. (“Ricoh”) alleging infringement of certain printing-related patents. Ricoh sought production of certain categories of documents that MASA contended were privileged and, therefore, not subject to disclosure. Ricoh contended that the documents are responsive…
Webinar on October 20, 2020: When Artificial Intelligence is the inventor, who owns the patent?
Upcoming webinar: When Artificial Intelligence is the inventor, who owns the patent? Join us for a one-hour webinar on the topic, “When AI is the inventor, who owns the patent?” Register now. Who Should Attend: General Counsel, Patent Counsel Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 Time: 11 AM – 12 PM…
VirnetX v. Apple: Delay of Five Months Justifies Denial of Motion to Amend Judgment of More Than $400 Million
In this long running patent dispute, the district court denied Apple’s motion to amend the judgment based on a five month delay. The district court explained the long running history of the case as follows: “Nearly 10 years ago, VirnetX sued Apple, alleging Apple’s FaceTime and VPN on Demand features…