Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Court Declines to Extend Fed.R.Evid. Rule 502(d) to Proprietary and Confidential Communications

In this patent infringement action, the parties jointly moved the court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), to allow the parties to claw back the production of not just attorney-client information, but also proprietary and confidential information.  To support the request, the parties explained that…

Updated:

Special Master Recommends Fee Award Based on Flat Fee Agreement But Cuts Amount of Reasonable Attorney’s Fees Based on Lack Documentation

The district court appointed a special master to resolve the amount of attorney’s fees to which Defendants, including Cisco, were entitled.  As the special master noted, the fees claimed by Cisco were paid under an alternative flat monthly fee arrangement with its counsel, which in recent years, have increased as…

Updated:

District Court Grants Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Pursued Plainly Invalid Patents

Plaintiff Innovation Sciences, LLC (“Innovation”) initiated a patent infringement action against Defendant Amazon.com (“Amazon”).  The original complaint asserted three groups of patents, encompassing a total of ten patents. After the district court found certain of the patents invalid because they were abstract and the Federal Circuit affirmed, Innovation filed an…

Updated:

District Court Disqualifies Defense Counsel Where Law Firm Previously Did Work for Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Plaintiff Before Subsidiary was Acquired

The plaintiff, The Hillman Group, Inc. (“Hillman”), moved to disqualify Cooley LLP (“Cooley”) in this patent infringement action based on its relationship with Minute Key that is now wholly owned by Hillman.  Cooley, which had represented Minute Key throughout its acquisition by Hillman, now represented the defendant in this case,…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion for Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Conducted No Investigation Prior to Filing Patent Infringement Suit

WPEM filed a complaint against SOTI alleging that SOTI’s MobiControl Speed Lockdown technology infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,148,762. WPEM alleged infringement based upon its review of a user manual for version 11 of Speed Lockdown. When it answered the complaint, SOTI pointed out that version 10 of Speed Lockdown predated…

Updated:

District Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment on Willfulness Where Defendant Had No Knowledge of the Patent Prior to the Filing of the Lawsuit

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) software infringed the 7,885,981 patent (“the ‘981 Patent”), which pertains to data processing in relational computer databases. Microsoft filed a motion for summary judgment. After denying the motion with respect to infringement, the district court turned to issue of willfulness. The district court…

Updated:

Court Finds Attorneys in Contempt of Court for Violating Protective Order Where Attorneys Shared Confidential Materials Under Joint Defense Agreement

In this patent infringement action, the parties filed a joint motion for a stipulated protective order where they agreed that they could designate certain documents and information produced in the case as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Trial Counsels’ Eyes Only.” The protective order also provided that the confidential information…

Updated:

Maxell v. Apple: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Claim for Induced Infringement

In this patent infringement action, Apple filed a motion to dismiss Maxell’s induced infringement claims. In the motion, Apple asserted that the complaint did not plausibly allege Apple had “specific intent” to induce infringement, arguing that the complaint only cited broadly to Apple’s website and user manuals, without alleging how…

Updated:

District Court Finds Patents Invalid for Inequitable Conduct Because Inventor Withheld Material Information Of Prior Sales From USPTO And Litigation Misconduct Justified Inference of Non-Disclosure with An Intent to Deceive

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff Total Rebuild (“Total”) asserted that Defendant PHC (“PHC”) infringed claims of United States Patent No. 8,146,428 (“the ’428 Patent”), which is directed to systems and methods for safely testing devices and components under high-pressure. The district court conducted a bench trial on inequitable conduct…

Contact Us