Plaintiff Mondis Technology LTD. (“Mondis”) filed a patent infringement action against Chimei Innolux Corp. (“Chimei”). The case proceeded to trial before a jury and the jury found a number of claims valid and infringed by Chimei. The jury also found several claims invalid and not infringed by Chimei. With respect…
Patent Lawyer Blog
Inducing Infringement Claims Dismissed Where Plaintiff Failed to Allege Intentional Inducement
Plaintiff sued defendant for patent infringement for direct and indirect infringement for the commercial sale and/or use of the defendant’s asset tracking solutions product. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that plaintiff failed to identify an infringing instrumentality and also failed to allege…
Apple and Samsung Preliminary Injunction Battle Heats Up As Court Rules on Discovery Dispute
The ongoing patent battles between Apple and Samsung continue to pick up speed and show no signs of slowing down anytime soon. During the summer, Apple filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on certain of its patents and the district court ordered limited initial discovery for the topics raised…
Patent Exhaustion Leads to Dismissal of Video Compression Patents Alleged Against Certain DirecTV Products
Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants, including DirecTV and Vizio, which alleged infringement of multiple patents related to video compression technology. DirecTV and Vizio answered the complaint an alleged affirmative defenses of patent exhaustion and license. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment…
Methods Claims for E-Mail Processing Survive a Challenge to Patentability Under Bilski
Plaintiff, Innova Patent Licensing, LLC (“Innova”) filed a patent infringement action against Alcatel-Lucent Holdings (“Alcatel”) for a patent claiming methods for using a mail processing program to scan electronic messages to obtain additional information. Alcatel challenged the patent on the ground that it did not claim eligible subject matter under…
Despite Therasense’s Heightened Standard, Another Inequitable Conduct Claim Survives Summary Judgment
It appears that the announced death of inequitable conduct claims may have been premature. As described below, yet another court allowed such claims to survive summary judgment. A court in the Northern District of Illinois denied summary judgment on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no unenforceability. Citing the…
Mark Your Products/Packaging or Lose Your Past Damages
Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against several defendants. After the district court’s Markman decision, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding patent infringement and the scope of damages. After denying the parties’ respective cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court addressed the defense motion for a limitation on…
Multiple Defendants Dismissed Based on Improper Joinder
In a ruling that is likely to become more and more common after the passage of the America Invents Act, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed all but one of the defendants in a patent infringement action for improper joinder. In February 2010, the…
Inequitable Conduct Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss Because Allegations Permitted a Plausible Inference of Intent to Deceive
Plaintiff AlmondNet, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation based on four patents pertaining to Internet advertising. Microsoft filed several affirmative defenses and counterclaims against AlmondNet, including a defense and counterclaim that AlmondNet engaged in inequitable conduct before the PTO by failing to disclose three articles related to…
Did Plaintiff’s Counsel Violate the Golden Rule Justifying a New Trial? Court Says No Based on a “–“
Plaintiff Bruce Saffran, M.D. (“Dr. Saffran”) filed a patent infringement case against Johnson & Johnson. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Saffran finding that the patent was valid and that Johnson & Johnson had willfully infringed the patent. The jury found damages in…