Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Denied Where the Claim Construction Hearing Had Already Occurred

Defendant Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. (“Omron”) filed a motion to stay pending an Inter Partes Review that it initiated against Plaintiff’s National Oilwell Varco, L.P.’s (“NOV”) patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,474,142 (the ‘142 patent), is directed to automatic drilling. As the district court explained, “[o]n May 3,…

Updated:

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement Denied Where Agreement Was Reached as to the Amount of the Settlement But Party Struck Through Two Other Material Terms

Graco Childrens Products Inc. (“Graco”) filed a patent infringement action against Kids II, Inc. (“Kids II”). During discovery, Graco and Kids II agreed to discuss terms to settle the dispute. As part of that process, Graco’s in-house counsel sent an email to Kids II’s in-house counsel, with a settlement proposal…

Updated:

Emblaze v. Apple: Court Orders Parties to Meet and Confer Over Motion to Compel After Emblaze Fails to Justify How Apple’s Search Terms Were Unduly Burdensome

In this patent infringement action, Apple moved to compel production from Emblaze based on search terms that Apple provided. Emblaze opposed the motion, arguing that it had produced all responsive documents, that Apple’s requests were overbroad and that using Apple’s search terms would be unduly burdensome. The court began its…

Updated:

Foreign Parent Could Not Seek Lost Profits Based on Sales Lost By Its United States Subsidiary

After Fujitsu Limited (“Fujitsu”) filed a patent infringement action against Tellabs, Inc. (“Tellabs”), Tellabs filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of lost profits. As explained by the district court, Fujitsu Limited, a Japanese corporation, is the sole owner of two United States patents that Fujitsu Limited asserted…

Updated:

Motion to Intervene Denied After Jury Verdict of Patent Infringement Where Third Party Had Notice of Case and Could have Intervened Sooner

After a jury determined that certain defendants induced infringement of the plaintiff’s patents by, among other things, selling unregulated and semi-regulated bus converters to third parties, such as Cisco, Cisco moved to intervene into the case. The district court explained that “[t]he jury found that Cisco, among others, was a…

Updated:

Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Invalidity and “Divided Infringement” Denied as Premature Because Court Had Not Yet Ruled on Claim Construction

H-W Technology, L.C. (“H-W”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple and several other defendants including Amazon and Buy.com. H-W alleged that it had ownership of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,955, entitled “Internet Protocol (IP) Phone with Search and Advertising Capability” (the ‘955 patent). The 955 patent is directed to systems…

Updated:

Defendant Precluded from Deposing Plaintiff’s Expert Twice, Once After the Initial Expert Reports and Again After Rebuttal Reports

Plaintiff ProconGPS, Inc. (“Procon”) filed a patent infringement action against Skypatrol, LLC (“Skypatrol”). During the expert phase of the case, a dispute arose over the deposition of plaintiff’s experts. The parties disputed whether Skypatrol should be permitted to depose plaintiffs’ experts twice, once after Procon’s initial expert report and again…

Updated:

Motion to Exclude Damage Expert under Daubert Denied Where Expert Relied upon Incremental Profit and Cross-Examination Was Sufficient to Challenge Expert

Plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) alleged infringement of several patents against Best Buy Stores, L.P. (“Best Buy”) that pertain to stored value/debit cards. Best Buy moved to exclude the opinion of Alexsam’s damage expert, James L. McGovern, asserting that Mr. McGovern was applying a “rule of thumb” analysis that had no…

Updated:

Inadvertent Disclosure Did Not Waive Privilege and Crime Fraud Exception Held Not to Apply Even Though Disclosed Document May Show That Plaintiff’s Counsel Told Plaintiff It Had a Weak Legal Claim

After the plaintiff, Peerless Industries, Inc. (“Peerless”) produced an arguably privileged document to the defendant, Crimson AV LLC (“Crimson”), Peerless asserted that the document was inadvertently disclosed and was privileged. Crimson filed a motion to compel production of the document, particularly asserting that it should be produced under an exception…

Updated:

Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Denied without Prejudice Where Inter Partes Review Had Not Yet Been Granted

Plaintiff Automatic Manufacturing Systems, Inc. (“AMS”) manufactures and markets equipment used to print machine readable labels on glass microscope slides. Defendant Primera Technology, Inc. (“Primera”) competes against AMS in the glass-microscope-slide-printing-machine market. AMS owns U.S. Patent No. 8,013,884 (“the ‘884 patent”), The ‘884 patent is directed to a device that…

Contact Us