In the ongoing battle between Apple and Motorola, Motorola moved to strike portions of Apple’s supplemental expert report on damages. The district court had previously granted Apple’s request to supplement its damages expert report to address information that was disclosed between the filing of Apple’s initial damage report and the…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Multi-District Panel Rules That America Invents Act Does Not Bar Centralization of Multiple Defendants in Single District
Bear Creek Technologies, Inc. (“Bear Creek”) is the patent holder in fourteen patent infringement actions pending in three different district courts. Bear Creek moved for centralization in the District of Delaware or, alternatively, the Eastern District of Virginia. In each of the cases, Bear Creek alleged that various telecommunications companies…
Apple Wins Motion for Issue Preclusion Sanctions Against Samsung for Samsung’s Failure to Produce Source Code
The court had previously granted Apple’s motion to compel Samsung to produce the source code for Samsung’s accused products. Apple moved to compel a second time and sought issue preclusion sanctions for Samsung’s failure to produce source code. The court decided to focus on Samsung’s failure to produce code for…
Court Denied Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony That Relied on Consumer Survey to Establish Evidence of Infringement
Pact XPP Technologies (“Pact”) filed a patent infringement action against Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”) and other defendants. Xilinx filed a motion to exclude Pact’s expert’s testimony on inducement. Pact claimed that the defendants induced Xilinx customers to infringe the asserted patents and presented expert witness to offer an opinion that Xilinx…
Apple v. Motorola: Apple Provides Counsel Free of Charge to Inventor to “Prepare” for Deposition and Judge Posner Rules That No Bona Fide Attorney-Client Privilege Was Created
In one of several patent battles that Apple is waging across the country against Google’s Android operating system, Motorola moved to exclude the testimony of one of the inventors of the patent-in-suit. As part of determining this motion, the district court, Judge Posner, requested that Apple answer several questions in…
Apple v. Samsung: Rule 37 Sanctions Ordered Against Samsung for Failure to Timely Produce Documents Despite Two Court Orders
Apple sought sanctions against Samsung pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) in two separate motions pertaining to alleged violations of discovery orders, including an order regarding discovery on damages. The court had initially ordered Samsung to produce two categories of documents: (1) documents from the custodial files of Samsung designers of the…
Inequitable Conduct Defense Dismissed Where Defendants Did Not Even Purport to Identify an Allegedly Fraudulent Document Submitted to the PTO
Zep Solar Inc. (“Zep”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants. Two of the defendants, Lightway Green new Energy Company, LTD (“Lightway”) and Brightway Global LLC (“Brightway”) answered and counterclaimed with an allegation of inequitable conduct. Zep moved to strike or dismiss the counterclaim and affirmative defense. As the…
Inventor Not Required to Answer Hypothetical Questions at Deposition Because He Was Not Designated as an Expert
Plaintiff Homeland Houswares, LLC (“Homeland”) filed a declaratory judgment action for a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity against Sorensen Research and Development Trust (“Sorensen”). Homeland took the deposition of one of the inventors of the patent-in-suit, Mr. Paul Brown. Mr. Brown is the co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,599,460 (the…
Apple v. Samsung: Court Grants Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Samsung High-Level Executives But Limits the Time of the Depositions
Apple noticed the depositions of several high-ranking employees at Samsung and moved to compel their depositions. As the district court explained, “Apple argues that it entitled to these depositions because each SEC witness has unique, firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge of facts and events central to this litigation. The SEC witnesses acted…
Court Denies Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Employee Expert Even Though Employee Expert Testified at Deposition That His Report Contained No Opinions and Repeatedly Invoked the Attorney-Client Privilege During Deposition
Defendant, Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”), identified and disclosed an employee as an expert pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and submitted several disclosures for the employee expert as well. Plaintiff moved to exclude the employee expert’s disclosures on grounds of (a) improper hearsay, (b) undisclosed opinions regarding prior art, (c) unreliable opinions, (d)…