Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Requires A Patent Owner’s Challenge on The Petitioner’s Standing to be Raised in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response

In IPR2012-00022, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Tierney, Green and Robertson) issued a decision rejecting the Patent Owner Isis Innovation Limited’s (“Patent Owner”) motion for leave to challenge petitioner Arisoa Diagnostics’ (“Petitioner”) standing to file the petition for inter partes review. According to the Patent Owner, the…

Updated:

Danisco v. Novozymes: Declaratory Judgment Action for Non-Infringement and Invalidity Improper and Dismissed Where Action Was Filed Prior to or Simultaneously with the Issuance of the Patent

Danisco US, Inc. (“Danisco”) filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that its Rapid Starch Liquefaction products (“RSL products”) do not infringe certain patents held by Novozymes and that the patent-in-suit is invalid. Danisco and Novoyzymes are two of the major competitors in the field of developing and supplying industrial enzymes…

Updated:

California Court: Allegations That Defendant Used Product Is Sufficient To Plead Claim for Direct Infringement of Method Claims

In a patent case pending before Judge Koh in the Northern District of California, Defendant Pinnaclife Inc. (“Pinnaclife”) moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff CreAgri, Inc. (“CreAgri”) infringement claims under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949…

Updated:

Eastern District of Texas Orders Severance of Multi-Defendant Action Sua Sponte to Avoid One “Massive” and “Unmanageable” Trial

In a patent infringement action brought by Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) against thirteen separate defendants, grouped into seven issuers of electronic gift cards, the Eastern District of Texas decided to sever the defendants as the case got closer to trial. As explained by the court, “[t]his is the sixth lawsuit that…

Updated:

First Filed Inter Partes Review Granted With Mixed Results

Yesterday, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) issued a decision in the first IPR filed, i.e., IPR2012-00001. Garmin International, Inc. (“Garmin”) filed the IPR on a patent owned and asserted by Cuozzo Special Technologies LLC (“Cuozzo”), U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 covering a speed limit indicator. Central to Garmin’s IPR…

Updated:

Allvoice v. Microsoft: Allvoice Loses Attempt to Modify Infringement Contentions after an Adverse Markman Ruling

In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Allvoice Developments US LLC (“Allvoice”) moved to amend its infringement contentions against Microsoft. Allvoice sought the amendment to incorporate changes that related to two claim constructions by the district court that differed from those asserted by Allvoice and to provide technical corrections or clarifications…

Updated:

LSI Successfully Adds Accused Products to ITC Investigation Against Funai

Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere System LLC (collectively, “LSI” or “Complainants”) filed a motion for leave to amend their amended complaint in order to clarify the scope of the accused products of Respondent Funai Electric Company (“Funai”). LSI sought to clarify that the scope of the accused products were not…

Updated:

Motion to Substitute New Entity as Plaintiff and Dismiss Original Plaintiff Denied Where Defendant Was Entitled to Direct Discovery Against Original Plaintiff

Klausner Technologies, Inc. (“Klausner Technologies”) filed a patent infringement action against Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. (“Interactive Intelligence” or “IIG”). After the action was filed, Klausner Technologies assigned all of its interest in the patent-in-suit to IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. (“IPVX”), including the rights to enforce the patent and to recover…

Updated:

Carnegie Mellon v. Marvell: Marvell Loses $1.17 Billion Jury Verdict and Jury Finds Marvell’s Infringement Willful After Court Precludes Marvell from Relying on Its Own Patents as a Defense

In the patent infringement action brought by Carnegie Mellon University (“Carnegie Mellon” or “CMU”) against Marvell Technology Group, LTD. (“Marvell’), the jury returned a verdict in favor of Carnegie Mellon in the amount of $1.17 billion, finding that Marvell had infringed two patents owned by Carnegie Mellon. The jury also…

Updated:

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung’s Argument Regarding Juror Misconduct Insufficient to Justify a New Trial

After the jury returned a verdict in Apple’s favor for over $1 billion in damages, Samsung moved the district court for a new trial. Samsung’s based its motion on the argument that the jury foreperson gave dishonest answers during voir dire and that interviews he gave after the verdict demonstrated…

Contact Us