Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

District Court Excludes Patent Quality Inventor Study that Ranked Inventor of Patents-in-Suit as “Top Rated Inventor” But Denies Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Filed on Eve of Trial

Personalized Media Communications, LLC “PMC”) filed a patent infringement action against Zynga, Inc. (“Zynga”). Prior to trial, PMC sought to use an exhibit created by Ocean Tomo, entitled “Patent Quality Inventor Study.” The study purported to rank “John Harvey (the inventor of the patents in suit) as the “top rated…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: District Court Strikes Part of Samsung’s Expert’s Report on Damages

As Apple and Samsung prepare for a new trial on damages, Apple filed a motion to exclude part of the damage calculation set forth in Samsung’s updated expert report on damages. In particular, Apple moved to exclude the damage calculation pertaining to the Samsung Gem phone on the ground that…

Updated:

District Court Orders Production of Litigation Funding Agreement

In the patent infringement action between Cobra International, Inc. (“Cobra”) and BCNY International, Inc. (“BCNY”), BCNY filed a motion to compel several documents, including a litigation funding agreement. Cobra opposed the motion asserting that the person funding the litigation was not making decisions regarding the lawsuit and was not interfering…

Updated:

Register Now for a Patent Litigation Webinar: How community property laws can affect your company

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:00pm – 2:00pm The Intersection of Patents and Community Property: The Problem of the Ex-Spouse In a divorce, patents can be considered marital assets subject to community property laws, creating an unexpected and unwelcome tangle of legal issues for employers with a stake in the intellectual…

Updated:

Bickering Brothers Break Common Interest and Results in Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

Porto Technology Co., LTD (“Porto”) filed a patent infringement action against Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”). During the litigation, Verizon moved to compel communications between two of the plaintiffs, who are brothers, and counsel. As explained by the district court, the court began by looking at “communications between Ji-Soo…

Updated:

Patent Claims for Prenatal Diagnostic Method Invalidated as Ineligible Subject Matter

Method Claims Applying Conventional Techniques to a Natural Phenomenon Held to be Patent Ineligible Subject Matter By Ali Shalchi The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found Sequenom’s patent claims on a prenatal diagnostic method to be invalid and not infringed by Arisoa Diagnostic’s Harmony Test product,…

Updated:

Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Insufficient Written Description Denied Where There Were Disputed Issues of Material Fact

In this patent infringement action between competing producers of satellites and satellite networking systems, ViaSat plaintiffs asserted that Space Systems/Loral infringed the ‘875 patent. As explained by the district court, the ViaSat plaintiffs are corporations that develop commercial and military satellite and digital communication technologies. SS/L is a wholly owned…

Updated:

NetAirus v. Apple: District Court Strikes Survey Expert Where Survey Expert’s Methodology Made No Effort to Shield Respondents from Study Goals and Included Both Owners and Prospective Purchasers as Respondents

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff NetAirus Technologies, LLC (“NetAirus”) asserted that Apple infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,103,380 (the “‘380 Patent”). The ‘380 Patent claims methods in which a “handset unit [ ] configured to a personal digital assistant (PDA)” wirelessly communicates over both a local area network (“LAN”) and…

Updated:

Covenant Not to Sue Does Not Prevent Finding of Exceptional Case and Award of Attorneys’ Fees Where Adverse Determinations Were Already Made

Plaintiffs Kim Laube & Co. (“Laube”) brought this patent infringement action against Defendant Wahl Clipper Corp. (“Wahl”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,473,973 (“the ‘973 Patent”), which is titled “Disposable Cutting Head for Clippers.” After jury and bench trials, Laube filed a motion dismiss all patent related claims and…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung’s Request for Stay of Discovery Orders Denied Where Magistrate Judge Made No Ruling on Privilege Issues and the Scope of the Compelled Information Was Not Overly Broad

As a result of Samsung’s alleged violation of the protective order, Magistrate Judge Grewal previously ordered Samsung to produce to Apple emails and communications by Samsung employees that would shed light on the scope of the alleged protective order violation and to make available for deposition various witnesses by October…

Contact Us