Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Motorola v. Apple: Judge Postpones Markman and Orders Motorola and Apple to Clean Up Their Own Mess

As the litigation between Motorola and Apple rages on throughout the country, one judge has had enough of an ever increasing number of claims and patents asserted by both companies. As explained by the district court, “[b]oth Apple and Motorola greatly expanded the scope of this patent litigation by, among…

Updated:

Motion to Exclude Advice of Counsel Granted Where Defendant Sought to Rely on Pre-Investigation Advice on Cease and Desist Letter While Preventing Discovery of Advice

Volterra Semiconductor (“Volterra”) filed a motion to prevent Primarion from offering evidence regarding the subjective prong of the Seagate test on willful infringement. See In re Seagate Technology, LLC 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As explained by the district court, “Volterra argues that Primarion’s Seventh Supplemental Responses to Volterra’s…

Updated:

Pre-Filing Investigation at ITC Protected from Discovery as Work Product and Work Product Privilege Was Not Waived

In this ITC investigation, Respondents Yantai Zhenghai Magnetic Material Co., Ltd., Anhui Earth-Panda Advance Magnetic Material Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Jinji Strong Magnetic Material Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Manufacturing Respondents”) moved to compel discovery responses from Complainants Hitachi Metals, Ltd., and Hitachi Metals North Carolina, Ltd. (Collectively, “Hitachi Metals”). The motion…

Updated:

HP’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing Denied Where Plaintiff Demonstrated It Had Substantial Rights to Patents-in-Suit Even Though GE Had Right to Enforce Patents Against Seventeen Specific Companies, None of Which Were Defendants in the Litigation

Princeton Digital Image Corporation (“PDIC”) filed several patent infringement actions against Hewlett-Packard, Fujifilm, Xerox, Facebook and Ricoh, among others. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. The case is based on two patents for digital image processing technology in cameras, computers and other devices. In May…

Updated:

Patent Case Rulings from the Central District of California: Mar. 18 to Mar. 29, 2013

The following four decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of March 18 through March 29, 2013. The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in…

Updated:

Hitachi v. Top Victory: Court Declines to Apply Retroactively AIA’s Prohibition on the Use of an Accused Infringer’s Decision Not to Obtain Advice of Counsel as Evidence of Willful Infringement

Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co. LTD. (“Hitachi”) filed a patent infringement action against Top Victory Electronics (Taiwan) Co LTD (“Top Victory”). As the case approached trial, the parties filed several motions in limine. In particular, Top Victory filed a motion in limine to preclude Hitachi from arguing to the jury that…

Updated:

Motion for Sanctions Based on Threats of Counsel to Reexamine Patents and to Take Other Action Against Outside Counsel, Although at Best “Silly Posturing and at Worst Unprofessional,” Insufficient to Justify Sanctions Because of First Amendment

Plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“VSi”) filed a motion for sanctions against defendant MicroStrategy (“MS”). The sanctions motion was based on statements that VSi characterized as threats against both VSi and its counsel by an outside counsel and a principal of MS, in conjunction with MS’s filing of a request for…

Updated:

Canon Establishes Economic Prong of Domestic Industry Requirement on Summary Determination in ITC Proceeding

Complainants Canon, Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Virginia, Inc. (“Canon”) filed a motion for summary determination that Canon satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for each of the patents in the investigation. Canon asserted that it satisfied “[t]he economic prong of the domestic industry requirement based…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: The Next Round Begins in District Court with the Court Ordering the Case Streamlined Limiting Each Side to Twenty-Five Asserted Claims and Accused Products and Stating “the Court Will Not Permit the Parties to Involve over Fifty Experts

In the next round of litigation in the ongoing war between Apple and Samsung over Smartphones, the district court ordered the parties to file a joint status report to address whether the new action should be stayed pending the appeal in the prior litigation. As explained by the district court,…

Updated:

The PTAB Clarifies Scope of Permissible Discovery in Inter Partes Review Proceedings: Part 1 of 2

In this two-part blog, the standards for seeking discovery are discussed in the context of a recent order in Garmin International, Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, IPR2012-00001. In Garmin, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Lee, Tierney and Cocks) issued an order regarding the patent…

Contact Us