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…
Patent Lawyer Blog
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…
Expert Survives Challenge to Methodology Where Report Contained Opinions That Plaintiff’s Licenses Would Raise Prices by Excluding Competitors
Sandisk Corp. (“Sandisk”) filed a patent infringement action against Kingston Technology Co., Inc. (“Kingston”). Prior to trial, Sandisk moved to exclude defendant’s expert witness on damages because the expert’s methodology was unreliable and because the supplemental report contained untimely opinions. In terms of reliability, Sandisk asserted that the expert used…
Recommendation to Deny Transfer Motion Where Private and Public Interest Factors Were Neutral and Therefore Defendants Did not Meet Burden to Show Proposed District Was More Convenient Than Eastern District of Texas
Round Rock Research (“Round Rock”) purchased approximately 4500 patents from Micron Technology. Round Rock then sued Dell and Oracle on certain of these patents for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Within a few months of the filing of the lawsuit, Dell…
Defendants Precluded From Introducing Evidence of Their Own Scientists Work to Apportion and Decrease Damages
In a patent infringement case pending before the United States District for the Western District of Wisconsin, the plaintiffs filed a motion in limine before the damages phase of the trial to preclude the defendants from arguing that the work performed by their scientists should be taken into account in…
Defendants Proximity to Delaware Leads to Transfer Out of the Eastern District of Texas
Plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a number of defendants in the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants moved to transfer the case to either the Central District of California or the District of Delaware. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business in Connecticut and is incorporated in Delaware. The…
Continuing Infringement Justifies Award of Supplemental Damages
ActiveVideo filed a patent infringement action against several Verizon entities asserting that Verizon infringed certain of ActiveVideo’s patents. After a three week jury trial, the jury found that Verizon infringed asserted claims of four of the patents and awarded ActiveVideo $115,000,000 in damages. After the verdict, ActiveVideo sought an award…