Published on:

by

After a district court in the Eastern District of Virginia invalidated the patent-in-suit because it did “not pass the two part test laid out by the Supreme Court in Mayo and Alice.” Peschke Map Techs. LLC v. Rouse Properties Inc., No. 1:15-cv-1365, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2016 WL 1031295, at *7 (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 2016), the plaintiff moved to dismiss a patent infringement action pending in a different district while a motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending.

The defendant had moved for judgment on the pleadings in its favor, arguing it cannot infringe on an invalid patent and that plaintiff is collaterally estopped from continuing to pursue its infringement claim. As noted by the district court, it is well known that a patentee is estopped from pursuing infringement claims for a patent that has been invalidated by another federal court, even if that action involved a different defendant. See Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313, 333 (1971).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the parties reported that they had settled their dispute while it was pending before the Federal Circuit. The settlement was contingent upon the district court’s granting an indicative motion that it would vacate the underlying judgment.

The district court began its analysis by noting that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) grants district courts the authority to relieve a party from a final judgment when ‘applying [the judgment] prospectively is no longer equitable’ or for ‘any other reason that justifies relief.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), (6). Rule 60(b) ‘vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.’ Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614-15 (1949). Whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion ‘lies within the sound discretion of the district court.’ Neuberg v. Michael Reese Hosp. Found., 123 F.3d 951, 955 (7th Cir. 1997).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. (“Defendant”) for patent infringement, the Defendant filed its an answer raising a series of affirmative defenses to Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff then moved to strike several of the Defendant’s affirmative defenses as insufficient or improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).

The Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s fourth affirmative defense, which includes “laches, waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence,” is “improper, confusing and fails to give Plaintiff fair notice. As explained by the district court, in support of these four discrete defenses, Defendant’s Answer only provided a single, conclusory sentence: “[Plaintiff] is barred in whole or in part from asserting the [patent-in-suit] against Fieldpiece under the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver, estoppel, and/or acquiescence.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the defendants’ patent invalidity counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) because the plaintiff withdrew its patent infringement claims and filed a covenant not to sue regarding those claims. In the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff asserted that the patent invalidity claims are therefore rendered moot by the covenant not to sue.

The district court then noted that in Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise, 606 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the court found that the offer of a covenant not to sue for patent infringement for any acts of infringement of a patent (past or future) was sufficient to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction over a suit for declaratory judgment of invalidity. This was because the covenant “extinguished any current or future case or controversy between the parties.” Id. at 1348. The Ablaise court noted that whether a covenant not to sue divests the court of jurisdiction depends on what is covered by the covenant. 606 F.3d at 1346-47. In Ablaise, the plaintiff “on behalf of itself and any successors-in-interest to the ‘530 patent”, released and unconditionally covenanted not to sue Down Jones or any of its subsidiaries or divisions for infringement of the ‘530 patent “as of the date of this agreement based on Dow Jones’ manufacture, importation, use, sale and/or offer of currently existing products or use of methods.” Id. at 1345. When Dow Jones asserted that the covenant did not extend to Dow Jones’ past products or existing licenses, Ablaise clarified that the covenant extended to past products and use. Id. The Court held that this “extinguishe[d] the controversy” between the parties, and divested the court of its Article III jurisdiction.” Id. at 1349.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 7,923,221 (the “Cabilly III patent”), owned by Defendants, is invalid and therefore Plaintiffs do not owe royalties with respect to Praluent. During the case, Plaintiffs requested production of five executed settlement agreements that resolved prior litigations involving the Cabilly II and III patents and also requested a deposition regarding the agreements and the negotiations that led up to the agreements. Defendants represented that it would not use the agreements in the litigation.

The district court began its analysis by noting that “[o]ne potential methodology for valuing a patent is based on comparable licenses. ‘Such a model begins with rates from comparable licenses and then ‘account[s] for differences in the technologies and economic circumstances of the contracting parties.’ . . . The Federal Circuit has rejected the argument that licenses in settlement agreements are categorically irrelevant to a reasonably royalty. ‘While the fact that a settlement or settlement offer comes in the midst of litigation may affect the relevance of the settlement or offer, there is no per se rule barring reference to settlements simply because they arise from litigation.’ Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., 782 F.3d 1324, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Following up on the district court’s previous ruling barring the use of jury questionnaires, the district court addressed the issue of whether any Internet research of the potential jurors should be permitted. After analyzing the reasons to issue an outright ban on such research, the district court explained that it would instead request that the parties agree not to conduct Internet research on the potential jurors.

The district court explained that “[t]rial judges have such respect for juries — reverential respect would not be too strong to say — that it must pain them to contemplate that, in addition to the sacrifice jurors make for our country, they must suffer trial lawyers and jury consultants scouring over their Facebook and other profiles to dissect their politics, religion, relationships, preferences, friends, photographs, and other personal information.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

California Home Spas, Inc. (“CHS”) filed a motion to bifurcate the trial between damages and infringement and asserted that the damage trial should proceed first. As noted below, the district court denied the request finding that bifurcation is unusual and that defendant had not justified the unusual procedure in this case.

CHS contended that the damages in this case will be limited and urged the district court to bifurcate the case to first determine the amount of damages in order to facilitate any settlement discussions between the parties. The plaintiff argued that CHS’s damages estimates are inaccurate and that bifurcating the case would only serve to delay the ultimate outcome of the case. The Plaintiff also asserted that CHS’s motion was part of CHS’s ongoing “vexatious and deceitful conduct.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After all parties agreed to settle the case, the parties jointly moved to vacate a sanctions order. The district court declined to vacate the sanctions order, even though plaintiff’s counsel had apparently complied with the order, because the order was entered by a prior judge in a detailed ruling.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, defendant Dynamic Drinkware, Inc. (“Drinkware” or “Defendant”) filed a motion to permit it to present live video testimony at trial, or, in the alternative, to take the deposition of a non-party named Dan Blondal for use at trial. The plaintiff, National Graphics, opposed the motion and filed a motion for a protective order seeking to bar the proposed deposition.

The Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that discovery has been closed for a full year and that trial was scheduled to start in six weeks. Although the Defendants viewed Mr. Blondal as an important witness, they never deposed him during the discovery period.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff, Samsung, filed a motion for an order regarding the presentation of evidence. Samsung’s proposal included a “six-stage” process for presenting the evidence. In support of the proposal, Samsung argued that the “six-stage” process would help the jury understand the complex issues it would need to decide. The defendant opposed the motion, asserting that Samsung’s proposal would not contribute to a better understanding of the complex issues for the jury.
Continue reading