Apple suffered yet another set back in the Smartphone wars, this time losing its motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung. The district court denied the permanent injunction primarily on the ground that Apple could not show irreparable harm that would result to Apple if an injunction did not issue.…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Plaintiff Had Standing to Pursue Patent Infringement Action Against AOL and Google Where It Had Acquired All Substantial Rights to the Patent-In-Suit
Plaintiff Suffolk Technologies, LLC (“Suffolk”) brought a patent infringement action against AOL and Google. Suffolk’s complaint alleged that “AOL and Google have infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,082,835 (135 patent) entitled “Internet Server and Method of Controlling an Internet Server.” The ‘835 patent claims a method of controlling an internet server…
Respondent’s Motion to Compel Based on Declaration from a Former Employee That Complainant’s Counsel Were in Contact with Current Employees of Respondent Was Denied Where Complainant’s Counsel Represented to ALJ That No Such Contact Had Occurred
Respondent ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private) Ltd. (“CCPL”) moved to compel complainant Align Technology, Inc. (“Align”) to produce documents and supplement responses to interrogatories. As explained by the Administrative Law Judge, “CCPL asserts that Align has provided incomplete responses to Document Request No. 9 and Interrogatory No. 13. CCPL says that Document…
LG Moves to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Inventor Who Resides in Taiwan to Sit for a Deposition in the United States
In this patent infringement action between Industrial Technology Research Institute (“ITRI”) and LG Corporation (“LG”), LG moved to compel ITRI to make a Taiwanese citizen, who was also the inventor of the patent-in-suit, but no longer an employee of ITRI, to sit for a deposition in the United States. The…
Court Denies Marvell’s Emergency Motion to Strike Carnegie Mellon’s Attempt to Include Noninfringing Sales of Chips That Are Never Used in the United States as Untimely and an Improper Attempt at Reconsideration
During jury selection in this patent infringement action, Marvell Technology Group, LTD (“Marvell”) filed an emergency motion to strike a portion of Carnegie Mellon’s (‘CMU”) damages. In the case, CMU asserted that Marvell infringed two of its patents directed to sequence detection in high density magnetic recording devices, specifically to…
The America Invents Act Brings Patent Litigation to the Patent and Trademark Office: Declarations and Depositions Will Now Be Common for the First Time
The America Invents Act (the “AIA”) includes a new inter partes review (“IPR”) procedure that takes the place of the old inter partes reexamination. The new IPR procedure, called a “trial” once the petition for review is granted by the Patent Office, permits declarations, limited discovery, including depositions, and potentially…
Administrative Law Judge Limits Discovery of Electronically Stored Information in Proceeding before ITC by Limiting the Number of Custodians to 15
Complainant FlashPoint Technology, Inc. (“FlashPoint”) initiated an ITC proceeding against HTC Corporation, among others. FlashPoint filed a motion for a protective order seeking to limit the discovery of electronically stored information. FlashPoint proposed a limit of 15 custodians collectively for respondents to select, which included an option to negotiate for…
Apple v. Samsung: Apple Is Ordered to Turn over Recent Settlement Agreement with HTC to Samsung Despite HTC’s Objections
After the recent global settlement between Apple and HTC, the terms of which Apple and HTC agreed to keep confidential, Samsung requested production of the agreement from Apple. Samsung moved to compel the production of the agreement. Samsung sought discovery of the agreement with HTC to support its opposition to…
Brandywine v. Cisco: Motion to Dismiss Damage Claim Based on Inadequate Disclosures Denied But Plaintiff Ordered to Supplement With Information in Its Possession or Risk Preclusion
Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC (“Brandywine”) filed a patent infringement action against Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”). During the initial case management conference, the parties were given additional time to supplement their initial disclosures and were told to do so “on pain of preclusion.” Cisco contended that the damage disclosures remained inadequate…
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple: Motion to Strike Expert’s Equivalence Analysis Denied Where Defendants Were Merely Disagreeing With Expert on the Underlying Facts
In December 2010, plaintiff Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against several defendants, including Apple, LG and Canon. The complaint accused the defendants of infringing several patents pertaining to video compression technology. The district court subsequently granted Canon’s motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion. Prior…