In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Payrange, sought to withhold as privileged a PowerPoint presentation (the “Proposal”) prepared by its current litigation counsel, Wilson Sonsini. Prior to representing Payrange, but in the hope that it would be retained, Wilson Sonsini prepared the presentation and then forwarded it to Payrange.…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Update on Stan’s 4x4x48 Challenge and Support for the Special Forces Warrior Foundation
This weekend I took part in the 4x4x48 challenge created by David Goggins— running 4 miles every 4 hours for 48 hours for a total of 48 miles. At times, the run was both exhilarating and exhausting, particularly those midnight and 4 am runs on minimal sleep. The donations and…
District Court Excludes Damage Expert for Allocating Damages Equally Among Multiple Patents
In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Personalized Media Communications, LLC (“PMC”), moved to exclude the testimony of Apple’s damages expert, Mr. Thomas. In rebuttal, Mr. Thomas estimated that PMC would be entitled to a lump-sum payment of $1 million per allegedly infringing patent. PMC asserted that Mr. Thomas’ damages…
How to Safeguard AI Technology: Patents versus Trade Secrets
A common refrain is that an invention is only as valuable as the patent that protects it. But what happens when you cannot secure the patent? This is a frequent hurdle for inventors seeking to patent products utilizing artificial intelligence (AI). While still in its infancy, at least compared to…
District Court Determines Attorney’s Eyes Only Designation Proper for Relevant Documents Even If They Do Not Constitute Trade Secrets
Plaintiff All Plastic contended it was a leading manufacturer of premium displays and containers for medicinal and recreational cannabis dispensaries. All Plastic filed a patent infringement action against Defendants SamDan LLC d/b/a Smokus Focus (“SamDan”), Samuel Whetsel (“Mr. Whetsel”), and Daniel Russell-Einhorn (“Mr. Russell-Einhorn”) (with Mr. Whetsel, “Individual Defendants” and…
Upcoming Webinar: How to Defend Your Company Against False Advertising
On March 2, Stan Gibson will host a free webinar exploring the issue of false advertising, how it can harm your company, and how you can resolve problems resulting from competitors’ misleading statements. Details on the program and a sign-up link are below. Please join us! How to Defend Your…
Motion to Strike Expert on Invalidity Denied Where Development Documents Were Disclosed Sufficiently in Final Invalidity Contentions
Plaintiff Baxter International (“Baxter”) sued CareFusion Corporation and Becton, Dickson and Company (“Defendants”) for infringement of three medical infusion pump patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,764,034 (the ‘034 Patent), 5,782,805 (the ‘805 Patent), and 6,231,560 (the ‘560 Patent). Baxter moved to strike portions of the Defendants’ invalidity expert, including asserting that…
Support Our Special Forces: Donate to Stan’s 4x4x48 Challenge!
Read our update on Stan’s 4x4x48 Challenge here. Next month, Stan Gibson, Chairman of JMBM’s Patent Litigation Group, will run the 4x4x48 for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. Read his message below. Like many of you, I have wondered what I can do to help our country and the people…
District Court Determines Settlement Agreements in Patent Litigations Are Not Protected by the Common Interest Privilege and Should be Produced
In this patent infringement action, the defendant moved to compel the production of settlement license agreements as part of its reasonable royalty analysis. The plaintiff opposed the request on the grounds that the agreements were protected by the common interest privilege and were not relevant. The district court disagreed. Turning…
District Court Denies Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Meet and Confer Prior to Filing Motion
In this patent infringement action, the City of Hope filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion without prejudice for failing to comply with the Local Rules meet and confer requirement. Central District Local Rule 7-3 provides that “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall…