Parallel Networks had several lawsuits pending against different defendants in different district courts. The pending litigations consisted of nine actions, pending in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware. Four defendants sought centralization of the litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Three of the District of…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Apple v. Motorola: Apple Wins Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
Apple moved for summary judgment with respect to Claim 5 of Motorola’s U.S. Patent No. 6,175,559 (the ‘559 patent). Claim 5 of the ‘559 patent provides for a A method of generating preamble sequences in a CDMA system, the method comprising” steps of forming an outer code, forming an inner…
Apple’s Expert in ITC Proceeding Precluded from Offering Certain Testimony Regarding Non-Infringement and Lack of Domestic Industry
Complainant, Samsung, filed a motion to strike certain paragraphs of Apple’s expert’s, Dr. James Davis, report regarding non-infringement and lack of a domestic industry. Samsung asserted that the Davis Report contained arguments that Apple failed to disclose in response to interrogatories and, as a result, Samsung was prejudiced because the…
Sanctions for Alleged Spoliation Against Samsung Denied in Ongoing Battle with Apple by Administrative Law Judge at the ITC
In the running battle between Apple and Samsung that is playing out in courts and agencies around the world, Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions against Samsung for the alleged spoliation of evidence. Apple alleged that Samsung should be sanctioned for spoliation because Samsung deliberately failed to take institutional steps…
“Stop the Shenanigans” — Court Orders Parties’ Attorneys to Behave Themselves at Depositions
The district court began its opinion with a simple direction to the parties: “Stop the shenanigans at depositions. Period.” The district court went on to explain that “[t]his Court has no patience for behavior like that exhibited at the deposition . . . It is unnecessary and unacceptable.” Showing that…
Defense Expert Report on Non-Infringement Stricken Even Though Plaintiff Waited Until Just Before Trial to Move to Strike and Had Possession of Report for Nearly a Year
In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Hoyt Fleming (“Fleming”) moved to strike certain paragraphs of the report of Escort’s expert on its defense of non-infringement. One of Escort’s defenses to the charge of infringement was that Escort’s devices lock out false signals by using a process different from that described…
Research in Motion: Purported Inventor’s Late-Filed Lawsuit Dooms Claim of Co-Inventorship Because Laches Based on Economic Prejudice Bars the Claims
In this dispute over the inventorship of a patent that is integral to BlackBerry products, the district court held a bench trial on the applicability of laches. The issue at the bench trial turned on whether RIM suffered economic prejudice as a result of plaintiff’s delay in bringing the lawsuit.…
Complainant OSRAM AG Loses Summary Determination Motion to Establish Satisfaction of Domestic Industry Requirement at the ITC Because It Could Not Establish Economic Prong
Complainant OSRAM AG (“OSRAM”) moved for a summary determination that it had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Respondent LG Electronics, Inc. and other LG entities (collectively, LG) opposed the motion. OSRAM moved for summary determination on the ground that it has devoted substantial resources in the…
Claims for Inducing Infringement and Willful Infringement Dismissed Based on Failure to Plead Sufficient Facts
Defendant TIBCO Software Inc. (“TIBCO”) moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for inducing infringement and willful infringement. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that “TIBCO is ‘inducing its customers to directly infringe the ‘864 Patent by providing its customers and others with detailed explanations, instructions, and information as to arrangements, applications, and use of…
Damage Expert Opinion Allowed Where Expert Properly Apportioned the Value Between the Patented Feature and the Unpatented Features of the Accused Products
Plaintiff retained an expert to opine on damages arising from the defendants’ alleged infringement of the asserted patents. The defendants moved to exclude the expert report on two grounds: (1) the expert failed to properly apportion the value of the patented features; and (2) the expert misapplied the market value…