Oracle served an opening damages expert report in May 2011 and it did not serve any other opening damages expert reports. Google challenged the expert report with a Daubert motion, which the district court granted in July 2011. In the order granting the Daubert motion, the district court allowed Oracle…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Lucent’s Damages Against Microsoft Keep Getting Smaller as $70 Million Is Reduced to $26 Million
In the ongoing trial over damages for several Microsoft products between Lucent and Microsoft, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has reduced the damage award against Microsoft from $70 million to $26.3 million, plus prejudgment interest. The new trial on damages occurred after the Federal…
Plaintiff Gives Thanks That Texas Court Denied Prevailing Defendants Their Attorneys’ Fees Despite Plaintiff’s Claim Construction and Infringement Theories That “Stretch[ed] the Bounds of Reasonableness”
In three patent cases brought by the same plaintiff, Raylon LLC, against numerous defendants, Judge Davis of the Eastern District of Texas denied Rule 11 sanctions and motions for attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Statute, and Section 1927 of Title 28. Following the grant of summary judgment…
Motion to Stay Based on Customer Suit Exception Denied as Premature Where Infringement Contentions Had Not Yet Been Served
The plaintiff sued over 500 defendants for patent infringement in multiple actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The patent-at-issue claims a “‘software interface’ that may provide a ‘map of a selected geographic area’ such that ‘information which is associated with particular geographic locations,’…
The Battle Over Android: Oracle and Google Experts Differ by Billions on Damages So Court Appoints Its Own Expert
In the continuing battle over the Android operating system, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California decided to appoint its own damage expert. The district court explained that under Fed.R.Evid. 706(a), the district court “may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection” and noted that the…
After Six Years, Stay Pending Reexamination Is Lifted As the Life of the Patents Is Nearly Extinguished
In December 2004 and early in 2005, the plaintiff filed three patent infringement actions against several parties. The district court consolidated the cases. All of the consolidated cases were stayed by the district court pending reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Many years later, the Board of Patent…
Failure to Disclose Expert on Timely Basis Justifies Exclusion Before Markman Hearing
In this patent infringement action, the defendant moved to exclude plaintiff’s expert witness on the basis that the expert was not disclosed on a timely basis. The plaintiff disclosed the witness on November 4, 2011, as an expert to testify as to “the molecular weigh characterization of polymers” in a…
Customers Severed in Multi-Defendant Litigation and Case Against Suppliers Transferred
In the wake of the new restrictions on joinder of multiple defendants after the enactment of the America Invents Act, a number of plaintiffs have still attempted to join multiple defendants in a single lawsuit. One tactic used by plaintiffs is to file suit against several customers of a supplier…
Facebook’s Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination Denied Where Plaintiff Showed It Would Suffer Undue Prejudice
In December 2010, Indacon, Inc. (“Indacon”) sued Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) for patent infringement for two patents that pertain to a system for data acquisition and perusal. The plaintiff filed a Markman brief and Facebook filed an inter partes request for reexamination. Facebook then filed a motion to stay the case…
HP’s “Stunning” and “Arrogant” Restrictions on Plaintiff’s Expert Denied Where HP Sought to Preclude Expert from Working in Similar Field or Against HP for Several Years After Trial
In a patent infringement action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, one of the defendants, Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) moved for a protective order with respect to the designation of one of plaintiff’s experts. Plaintiff contended that HP infringed certain patents held by plaintiff by making…