In two separate actions, Robocast sued Apple and Microsoft for patent infringement. Apple responded by filing a motion to transfer and Microsoft subsequently filed a similar motion to transfer. Both complaints are centered on U.S. Patent No. 7,155,451 (the “‘451 Patent”), which is directed toward an “Automated Browsing System for…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Tactical Decision to Exclude Royalty Rate from Expert Report Causes Court to Preclude Defendant from Arguing Royalty Rate to the Jury
In this patent infringement action, the defendant, Varian Medical Systems, provided an expert report on damages that did not state a royalty rate for the accused products. The district court termed this a tactical decision. “By the way of background, Defendant Varian made the tactical decision to have its expert…
Federal Circuit Confirms That Method of Deferring Taxes Is Not Patentable
Defendant American Master Lease LLC (“AML”) appealed the decision of Judge Guilford of the Central District of California holding that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 6, 292,788 were invalid for failing to meet the subject matter eligibility requirements of Section 101 of the Patent Statute. The Federal Circuit (in…
Something New under the Sun: The Patent Reform Act of 2011 represents the first major overhaul of patent law since 1952
After passing Congress with bipartisan support, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, also known as the Patent Reform Act,1 was signed by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The new law significantly reforms the way inventors protect their inventions and advances the harmonization of global patent laws, but until many…
Affirmative Defense for Invalidity Dismissed Where Affirmative Defenses Were Plead in the Disjunctive and Did Not Put Plaintiff on Proper Notice
Plaintiff, Ferring B.V., filed a patent infringement action against Watson Laboratory, Inc. (“Watson Labs”) for tranexamic acid tablets sold under the trademark Lysteda. Watson Labs applied to the FDA for permission to manufacture and sell generic tranexamic acid tablets. Watson Labs filed a counterclaim and answer, including an assertion that…
Direct Infringement Action Against Time Warner and DirecTV Dismissed Where Plaintiff Failed to Plead Sufficient Allegations of Infringement
K Tech Telecommunications (“K Tech”) filed patent infringement actions against Time Warner and DirecTV. DirecTV and Time Warner moved to dismiss the patent infringement complaint for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. K Tech owns several patents that are directed toward particular…
Covenant Not to Sue Contains an Implied License Barring Infringement Claims and Cannot Be Revoked After Reliance
The parties, ICOS Vision Systems and Scanner Technologies, have been involved in patent litigation against one another for over ten years. The patents at issue concern technology used to inspect electronic packaging and one of the patents involved the use of ball grid arrays that provide a method of securing…
Brandeis University’s Patent Infringement Case Over Cookies Crumbles Against Multiple Defendants and the Court Transfers All the Crums to Another District
Plaintiff Brandeis University (“Brandeis”) alleged that it was the owner of the patents-in-suit and plaintiff GFA Brands, Inc. (“GFA”) alleged that it was the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiffs asserted that the defendants infringed the patents by making, using, selling or importing various products such as cookies, cookie dough…
Round Rock Loses Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in its Battle with SanDisk: SanDisk Corporation v. Round Rock Research
SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”) brought a declaratory relief action seeking a declaration that its products do not infringe certain patents held by Round Rock Research and that the patents were invalid. Round Rock moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending that its conduct in sending letters to SanDisk in…
Even Though Claims Did Not Satisfy Machine-or-Transformation Test, Patent Not Held Ineligible Because the Claims Were Not Directed to an Abstract Idea
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that all claims of the patent-in-suit was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims did not satisfy the machine-or-transformation test and otherwise disclosed an abstract idea. The patent-in-suit is directed to a method for computing Current Procedural Technology (“CPT”) from…