Plant Equipment (“Plant”) filed a patent infringement action against Intrado over a patent that describes a system and method for routing incoming calls through the use of a central data manager over a wide network to multiple call centers having multiple remote terminals. Intrado provides technology for the 9-1-1 call…
Patent Lawyer Blog
The Battle Over Android, Oracle v. Google: Google Is Ordered to “Stand and Deliver” or Withdraw Its Patent Marking Defense
In a previous ruling in the ongoing lawsuit between Oracle and Google over Android, the district court denied Google’s motion for partial summary judgment on a defense of patent marking. In that ruling, the district court expressed concern that disputes over whether Oracle or Sun products practiced the asserted claims…
Inventor’s Toy Glider Infringement Action Crashes to the Ground When Plaintiff Fails to Refute Evidence on Summary Judgment
Plaintiff was the inventor of a toy glider and was issued a patent in 1992. Plaintiff formed a partnership called Wingers Co. After forming Wingers, Plaintiff then sent a letter to the defendant introducing the toy glider and ultimately an agreement was entered into between Allied (the defendant), Wingers Co.…
Judge Posner Grants Motorola’s Summary Judgment Motion of Non-Infringement for Android: Apple v. Motorola
In Apple’s patent infringement action against Motorola, Apple claimed that certain Motorola devices running the Android operating system infringe two of its network component patents. Motorola moved for summary judgment. According to the district court, “Claim 1 of the ‘486 patent describes ‘replaceable…component’s]’ in a layered computing system. (The ‘852…
Court Orders Depositions in Taiwan to Overcome Procedural Obstacles in Japan
Plaintiff Gerber Scientific International (“Gerber”) filed a patent infringement action against Roland DGA Corporation (“Roland”), asserting that Roland infringed Gerber’s patent covering a method and apparatus for computerized graphic production. Roland filed a motion for protective order with respect to the depositions of three of its Japanese employees and its…
Taser’s Contempt Motion Denied Where Colorable Differences Existed Between Infringing Product and Newly Accused Product
After the district court found that defendant’s electronic control device literally infringed certain claims of a patent owned by Taser and denied defendant’s summary judgment motion on defendant’s claims of invalidity and unenforceability, Taser filed a motion for contempt and an application for an order to show cause. In its…
The Battle over Android, Oracle v. Google: Court Allows Third Chance for Oracle’s Damage Expert to Take a Bite out of Google But Makes Oracle Pay for the Chance
In the ongoing saga over Oracle’s lawsuit against Google, the district court has allowed Oracle’s damage expert another chance to fix its damage report. The district court had previously stricken Oracle’s damage expert report on two previous occasions but allowed Oracle’s damage expert a third chance. Before addressing the damage…
Court Sinks Two Moms and a Toy’s Attempt to Modify Expert Schedule in Patent Battle over Bath Toy
Plaintiff, Two Moms and a Toy, filed an emergency motion to stay the expert phase of their case pending the court’s ruling on claim construction. The plaintiff’s motion was based on the argument that “expert reports and expert discovery in a patent infringement case is extremely expensive and that a…
Microsoft and Google Strike Back: Declaratory Judgment Action Remains in Delaware Even Though Defendant Had Sued 450 Microsoft and Google Customers in Texas
Microsoft and Google sued Geotag in the District of Delaware for a declaration that their customers did not infringe a Geotag patent, “Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information,” and that the patent was invalid. Geotag had sued in excess of 450 companies in the Eastern District of…
Court Allows Deposition of Trial Counsel Over His Pre-Filing Investigation
Defendant moved to compel the deposition of a member of Plaintiff ‘s trial counsel regarding Plaintiff’s pre-filing investigation. Despite Defendant’s attempt to withdraw the motion based on a representation (not disclosed in the opinion) made by the Plaintiff in its sur-reply, the Court granted the Defendant’s motion and required the…