Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Customer Comments Admissible Over a Hearsay Objection Where Comments Could Be Used to Establish Use of an Infringing Feature

ABT Systems, LLC (“ABT”) filed an action against Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”). As the case proceeded to trial, the district court made some key rulings on motions in limine. In particular, the district court addressed whether customer product reviews on the Internet were admissible over a hearsay objection. As the…

Updated:

Rule 11 Sanctions Imposed where Plaintiff’s Failure to Evaluate and Understand the Accused Product Was Unreasonable and Easily Avoided

In Smart Options, LLC v. Jump Rope, Inc., Case No. 12-C-2498 (N.D. Ill. March 25, 2013), plaintiff Smart Options brought suit for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,313,539 against Jump Rope. The ‘539 Patent relates to a method for purchasing an “option” to buy a good or service (e.g., concert…

Updated:

Transfer from Wisconsin to Eastern District of Texas Appropriate Where Cases Involving the Same Patent Were Proceeding in Texas

TravelClick, Inc. (“TravelClick”) filed a declaratory judgment action against defendants Variant Holdings, LLC and Variant, Inc. (“Variant”), seeking a declaration that its iHotelier online hotel reservation system did not infringe Variant’s patent number 7,626,044 (the ‘044 patent). Variant filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of…

Updated:

Watch What You Say to the Press: Statements by Executives That Design-Arounds Were Already In Place Justifies Denial of Stay of Permanent Injunction

After the jury found defendant A10 Networks (“A10”) liable for misappropriation of trade secrets and infringement of patents owned by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al (“Brocade”), the court entered two permanent injunctions against A10, one that prohibited additional patent infringement and another that applied to the misappropriation of trade…

Updated:

Patent Case Rulings from the Central District of California: Feb. 1 to Feb. 15, 2013

The following fourteen decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of February 1 through February 15, 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:

Terminating An Inter Partes Review Proceeding Following Settlement

In IPR2013-00078, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Medley, Easthom and Siu) issued an order in International Business Systems Corporation (“Petitioner”) v. Financial Systems Technology (Intellectual Property) Pty. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) regarding the settlement between the parties and procedure regarding the termination of the procedure. The Petitioner filed…

Updated:

Failure to Provide Computation of Damages in Initial Disclosures Precludes Any Evidence of Damages at Trial

In this patent infringement action, Vinotemp International (“Vinotemp”) brought suit against Wine Master Cellars, LLP (“Wine Master”). Wine Master filed a counterclaim for patent infringement. Prior to trial, Vinotemp moved to preclude Wine Master from offering evidence of damages at trial. As explained by the district court, “Vinotemp moves to…

Updated:

Judge in Northern District of California Advises Parties That Federal Circuit’s Model Order on E-Discovery Is a Presumptive Starting Point for E-Discovery Orders

Positive Technologies, Inc. (“Positive Technologies”) filed a patent infringement action against Sony Electronics and Amazon, among others. Amazon filed a motion for entry of the Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s Model Order regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases (the “Model Order”). The Model Order provides for specific limits on e-discovery. There are…

Updated:

California Court Denies Rule 11 Sanctions For Failure to Comply With Rule 11’s Safe-Harbor Provisions

In Arrival Star S.A.., et al. -v- Meitek Inc., et al., Defendant Meitek Inc. (“Meitek”) moved for Rule 11 sanctions against the Plaintiff Arrival Star S.A. (“Arrival Star”) based on Meitek’s contentions that “ArrivalStar’s counsel (1) failed to prepare any claim construction before filing suit, (2) made a “tactical decision”…

Updated:

Allegations of Inducing Infringement Insufficient Where Plaintiff Failed to Plead Allegations Sufficient to Support an Inference of Intent to Induce Infringement

Plaintiff Benjamin Grobler (“Grobler”) filed a patent infringement action against Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“Sony”) alleging direct and indirect (both inducing and contributory) infringement. Grobler subsequently filed an amended complaint that removed the contributory infringement claim and asserted a claim for indirect infringement limited to inducing infringement. Sonly filed…

Contact Us