Plaintiff, Imaginal Systems, LLC (“Imaginal”) filed a patent infringement action against Leggett & Platt, Inc. (“Leggett”) and Simmons Bedding Company (“Simmons”) over three patents, which pertain to automatic stapling machines and a method of manufacturing box spring mattresses. The district court ruled on summary judgment that Imaginal’s patents were valid…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Thereasense Round Two: Even After “Seismic Shift” in the Law of Inequitable Conduct, District Court Applies Federal Circuit’s New Standard and Still Finds Patent Invalid Due to Inequitable Conduct
On remand to the district court after the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., the district court reviewed the procedural posture of the case and the landmark Therasense decision. The district court noted that “Therasense worked a seismic shift in the law of inequitable…
Patent Holder Loses Request to Extend Date for Filing Preliminary Infringement Contentions Where It Did Not Act Diligently in Seeking Relief from Court
ArrivalStar filed a motion seeking to extend the deadline for providing its preliminary infringement contentions arguing that the district court’s scheduling order only provided fourteen days for ArrivalStar to prepare and serve its preliminary infringement contentions, that ArrivalStar was misled by Enroute Systems, the opposing party, into believing that the…
Eastern District of Texas Limits Plaintiff to 40 Claims Across 10 Patents But Orders Dell to Respond to Interrogatory Seeking Non-Infringement Contentions Prior to Claim Construction
Plaintiff, Round Rock Research (“Round Rock”), filed a motion to compel non-infringement contentions from Defendant Dell (“Dell”) and Dell moved to limit the number of asserted complaints brought by plaintiff. Round Rock asserted ten patents against 125 products of Dell and Dell contended that Round Rock had asserted approximately 82…
Stay Pending Reexamination Granted, Even Though Plaintiff and Defendant Were Competitors, Because Plaintiff Did Not Move for a Preliminary Injunction
The defendant filed a motion to stay pending reexamination of the plaintiff’s patent. The district court noted that the plaintiff and defendant are both participants in the oxygen concentrator market. Inogen filed the action on November 4, 2011 asserting infringement of two of its patents. On February 8, 2012, Inova…
Oracle v. Google: Oracle Strikes Back and Succeeds in Striking Part of Google’s Expert Report on Damages
In response to Oracle’s third expert on damages (which was submitted after the district court had struck parts of the first two reports), Google’s damage experts were permitted to submit supplemental damage reports. With respect to the patent damages, the district court summarized the supplemental report as follows: “In his…
Judge Posner Consolidates Multiple Defendants Sued in Separate Actions and Raises Questions Whether Plaintiffs, if Successful in Establishing Liability, Will Be Entitled to Non-Trivial Damages
As a preliminary matter, Judge Posner consolidated the six patent cases that were filed by Brandeis University against various defendants, finding that they involve a number of common issues of law and that judicial efficiency would be maximized by consolidation. “These six cases are hereby consolidated under 1:12-cv-01508, pursuant to…
Apple v. Motorola: Judge Posner Issues an Order Requesting Claim Construction That Are Written in Language That Is Intelligible to Jurors
In the ongoing struggle between Apple and Motorola over claims of patent infringement in just one of many battles that is taking place across the country over smart phones, both parties proposed claim constructions that were not particularly well-written for lay jurors. After reviewing the claim construction briefs and stating…
Oracle v. Google: The Battle Over Android Continues as Google Seeks to Exclude Oracle’s Damage Expert for the Third Time
The district court had previously stricken certain parts of Oracle’s damage expert report on two separate occasions. First, the district court struck Oracle’s expert report for failing to apportion the value of the asserted claims and instead using the total value of Java and Android in calculating damages. Second, the…
Motion to Sever and Stay Denied Where Customer Defendants Could Not Satisfy Customer Suit Exception Factors
Cambrian Science (“Cambrian”) filed a second amended complaint that alleged patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,777,312 (the “‘312 Patent”). The second amended complaint alleged infringement against several defendants, certain of which were labeled by the district court as “Customer Defendants.” As to the Customer Defendants, Cambrian asserted that they…