Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Granting Security Interest in Patents Did Not Deprive Patent Owner of Standing to Sue for Patent Infringement

Raffel Systems, LLC (“Raffel”) filed a patent infringement action against Man Wah Holdings (“Man Wah”).  Man Wah moved to dismiss the patent claims on the ground that Raffel did not possess title to the patents at the time the lawsuit was filed and therefore lacked standing to sue. As explained…

Updated:

District Court Denies Production of Documents Pertaining to Litigation Funding

In this patent infringement action, AT&T filed a motion to compel certain litigation-funding discovery from the plaintiff, United Access Technologies, LLC (“UAT”).  The district court reviewed documents relating to or from third parties regarding potential investments by those third parties in UAT’s lawsuits and communications to and from third parties…

Updated:

District Court Adopts Recommendation of Special Master Awarding Reasonable Attorney’s Fees Based on Flat Fee Agreement

Following Straight Path IP Group’s, the patent owner’s, unsuccessful appeal, Apple and Cisco moved for reasonable attorney’s fees. Although the district court reaffirmed the exceptionality of the patent owner’s prosecution of the case, the district court found that defendants’ fee requests were too high and directed the parties to submit…

Updated:

District Court Excludes Royalty Damage Expert for “Conservative” Estimate That Relied upon 50% Apportionment Figure

In this patent infringement action between Guardant and Foundation Medicine (“Foundation”), Foundation moved to exclude the testimony of Guardant’s damage expert, Dr. Becker, on reasonable royalty damages.  In his opinion, Dr. Becker applied on an apportionment factor of 50% in that he asserted the patents contributed at least 50% of…

Updated:

COVID-19 Justifies Stay of Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review Where Review Had Not Yet Been Initiated by Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Plaintiff DivX, LLC (“DivX”) filed patent infringement actions against Netflix and Hulu asserting that both companies infringed various patents. Both defendants filed motion to stay their cases pending inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). As explained by the district court, starting in October…

Updated:

Webinar on May 27, 2020: COVID-19 and the Case for Force Majeure in California

Upcoming Webinar: COVID-19 and the Case for Force Majeure in California Join us as two California business trial lawyers present “COVID-19 and the Case for Force Majeure in California” The webinar will take place on Wednesday, May 27 at 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM Pacific Time. Register now. Businesses throughout California are…

Updated:

District Court Determines No Personal Jurisdiction Exists Under Rules (4)(k)(1) and (4)(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Where Plaintiff Could Show Only a Single Infringing Unit Was Sold in the State and Defendant’s Website and Other Activities Were Not Directed at Residents of the State

District Court Determines No Personal Jurisdiction Exists Under Rules (4)(k)(1) and (4)(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Where Plaintiff Could Show Only a Single Infringing Unit Was Sold in the State and Defendant’s Website and Other Activities Were Not Directed at Residents of the State by Stan Gibson…

Contact Us