Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Summary Judgment on Indefiniteness Denied Where Claims Reciting Term of “Engine for” Was Not a Means-Plus-Function Term

Defendant contended that several claims of a patent were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2. The defendant argued that the term “engine for” should be construed under §112, ¶6 because engine is only discussed in functional terms. The defendant also argued that the term “engine for” did not connote sufficient…

Updated:

Merely Stating That Testing of Potentially Infringing Products Is Expensive Is Not Good Cause To Amend Infringement Contentions Under Northern District of California’s Patent Rules

Recently, a Court in the Central District of California, applying the Patent Rules from the Northern District of California, held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the requisite good cause to amend its infringement contentions to add additional accused products. In particular, Plaintiff Kruse Technology Partnership (“Kruse”) sought to add…

Updated:

Inequitable Conduct Defense Dismissed for Failure to Plead Sufficient Facts

In this case, the defendant asserted a defense of inequitable conduct on the grounds that the inventors of the patent-in-suit were aware of prior art when they prosecuted the patent but failed to disclose that prior art.. On a motion to dismiss the inequitable conduct defense, the United States District…

Updated:

Plaintiff’s Expert Precluded from Testifying on Entire Market Value Rule Where Basis for Consumer Demand Was Not Shown

In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the district court granted defendant’s motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s damage expert’s testimony based on the entire market value rule. The district court held that the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony ran afoul of…

Updated:

Delaware Court Again Rules That A Corporate Entity’s State of Incorporation in Delaware Weighs Heavily Against Transferring Out of Delaware

A Delaware Court again recently denied transfer from Delaware to the Northern District of California despite that (a) all of the accused infringers were headquartered in the transferee venue, (b) the party witnesses knowledgeable about the accused products and documents related to the accused products were there and (c) the…

Updated:

Complete Source Code Production Ordered for Deposition

In a recent case from the Central District of California, the court ordered the defendant to produce the complete source code for an allegedly infringing product during a deposition. The plaintiff noticed the depositions of certain engineers from the defendant and requested that the defendant provide a complete copy of…

Updated:

Incorporation in Delaware Leads to Denial of Motion to Transfer

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against five companies in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for patent infringement. All five companies moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California because none of the defendants had their headquarters in Delaware and they argued it…

Updated:

Applying Therasense Court Denies Defense Motion of Inequitable Conduct

In the first district court case applying the Federal Circuit’s new standard for proving inequitable conduct, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas concluded that defendants had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patents-in-suit were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The case…

Contact Us