Core Wireless filed an action against Apple that alleged infringement of several patents in the Eastern District of Texas. Apple moved to transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). As explained by the court, “Core Wireless is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Grand…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Claim for Induced Infringement Survives after Akamai Where Inference of Intent to Induce Infringement Was “not only reasonable; it is almost inescapable”
Plaintiffs Transunion Intelligence LLC and Trans Union LLC (collectively, “Transunion”) filed a patent infringement action against Search America over two patents that are directed to a computer-implemented method and software that is used to access a person’s eligibility to receive financial assistance for healthcare services. Transunion asserted both direct infringement…
Raising Affirmative Defense of Invalidity In An Answer Does Not Deprive A Party of Standing to Seek Inter Partes Review
In IPR2012-00022, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Tierney, Green and Robertson) issued an order in Ariosa Diagnostics (“Petitioner”) v. Isis Innovation Limited (“Patent Owner”) regarding Ariosa’s standing. Section 315 specifies that “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if, before the date on which the petition…
Supreme Court’s Decision in Guam v. Minton Has Immediate Impact and Leads to Vacating of Trial so that Court Could Determine If It Had Jurisdiction over Case
In Gunn v. Minton, 2013 WL 610193 (Feb. 20, 2013), a unanimous United States Supreme Court determined that state courts can address legal malpractice disputes even though the underlying action may turn on issues involving patents. As expected, this ruling, which significantly narrowed federal court jurisdiction, is likely to impact…
Plaintiff’s Initiation of ITC Investigation Leads to Stay of District Court Case, including Stay of Patent not Involved in ITC Investigation
Avago Technologies (“Avago”) filed a patent infringement action against IPtronics, Inc. (“IPtronics”) asserting infringement of two U.S. Patents, patent nos. 5,359,447 (the ‘447 patent) and the 6,947,456 (the ‘456 patent) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. After a second amended complaint was filed, Avago…
Patent Case Rulings from the Central District of California: Feb. 16 to Feb. 28, 2013
The following nine decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of February 16 through February 28, 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…
Microsoft Invalidates Motorola’s Patent Claims Where Means-Plus-Function Limitations Were Found Indefinite
In this patent infringement action between Microsoft and Motorola, Motorola asserted certain claims of various patents against Microsoft, including claims that included “means for decoding” and “means for using” limitations. Motorola asserted that Microsoft’s Windows 7 operating system and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 9 infringed the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit.…
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…
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…
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…