Published on:

by

As the re-trial in the Oracle v. Google case approaches, both parties requested an opportunity to use a jury questionnaire followed by a limited, one hour oral voir dire. The district court reviewed the proposed questionnaire and found that it would not save time and was likely suggested to permit the parties to learn the jurors names and addresses in order to perform Internet research on the backgrounds of the prospective jurors.

The district court explained that “[t]he joint questionnaire and procedure proposed by counsel, however, will not save time. At a minimum, it will add an extra day to the jury-selection procedure while the parties’ neutral vendor collects, copies, and distributes the responses. The proposed questionnaire, moreover, includes vague questions that seem more likely to generate vague answers than accurate answers, which will lead to the need for verbal follow-up and consume even more time.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs Equistar Chemicals, LP and MSI Technology, LLC accused Westlake Chemical Corporation (“Westlake”) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,064,163. The asserted patent relates to a method of making polyolefin-based adhesive resins used for bonding to or bonding together polyolefins and polar materials. Westlake retained Christopher Bakewell as a damages expert, and Plaintiffs asserted that Bakewell relies on information that was not produced during discovery in his expert report, particularly on pound estimates for PE processing. Plaintiffs contended that Bakewell’s report improperly relie upon private conversations concerning non-infringing alternative costs.
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Damages
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The court explained the facts as follows: The defendant, CrestaTech, was founded by Mihai Murgulescu and George Haber in 2005. Its initial products included a receiver for satellite radio and a television platform. CrestaTech entered the television tuner market in September 2011, when it acquired the assets of Xceive Inc., a company developing and selling television tuners. Among the assets that CrestaTech acquired was the XC5000 series of television tuner products–now the accused products in this suit–which Xceive had developed prior to its acquisition in September 2011. Xceive had been selling the XC5000 since at least January 2007.

The plaintiff, Silicon Labs, began in Austin, Texas, in 1996. In the twenty years since, the company has developed and sold a variety of silicon-based TV tuners, with many name-brand TV sets now Xceive representing that it intended to acquire or merge with Xceive. Silicon Labs performed due diligence in evaluating Xceive and the now-accused products. As part of this process, Silicon Labs and its CEO, Tyson Tuttle, executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement and were provided with a set of Xceive confidential and proprietary documents and items. Among those items was an Evaluation Kit for the XC5000, including a number of XC5000 evaluation boards, on which Silicon Labs performed “extensive tests.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) filed two declaratory judgment actions against Sprint seeking to invalidate six Sprint patents and seeking a declaration of non-infringement of seven Sprint patents. Cisco is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Sprint is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

I am pleased to be a panel member at the Strafford webinar described below. The webinar promises to be informative – I hope you will consider joining us. – Stan Gibson

Venue Transfer Strategies in Patent Litigation – How Will TC Heartland Change the Landscape? Determining Whether and When to File Motions to Transfer Amid Uncertainty, Assessing the Court’s Questions in TC Heartland

This 90-minute CLE webinar will provide guidance to patent counsel for developing venue transfer strategies in patent cases. The panel will discuss recent §1404 trends and key considerations that parties should weigh when forming a potential transfer strategy.

Continue reading
by
Posted in: Education
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the defendant’s damage expert. The motion sought to exclude portion of the defendant’s expert report on damages, in particular the “market share reasonable royalty analysis” which was based on licenses for the patents-in-suit.
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Damages
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action pending in a multi-district litigation, one of the defendants moved the district court for an order allowing the defendant to destroy old backup tapes. Defendant ICM, Inc. (“ICM”) moved for an order permitting it to destroy old backup tapes that contain electronic business information of ICM for the years 2003 through 2009.
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Discovery
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement suit, Defendants and Counterclaimants James Stephens and Spectrum Laboratories, LLC (“Spectrum”) moved to strike the report of Plaintiff’s damages expert, Robert Taylor. Spectrum argued that the Plaintiff did not designate Mr. Taylor as an expert before the expert designation deadlines set by the district court expired. Spectrum also contended that the plaintiff violated a protective order by providing Taylor with information designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order.

The Plaintiff conceded that it failed to identify Taylor prior to the district court’s deadline, but contended that the oversight was inadvertent. The Plaintiff also argued that Taylor’s report was timely filed before the expert report cutoff date and that Taylor was required to execute the Acknowledgment accompanying the protective order prior to receipt of any information marked confidential or attorney’s eyes only.
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Damages
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Slide Fire Solutions, LP (“Slide Fire”) moved to compel discovery responses from Bump Fire Systems (“Bump Fire”). Bump Fire also requested a protective order to prevent the disclosure of certain discovery, including sensitive trade secrets and financial information.

With respect to the financial information, the court analyzed the motion to compel under the new proportionality standards set for in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26: The party seeking discovery, to prevail on a motion to compel or resist a motion for protective order, may well need to make its own showing of many or all of the proportionality factors, including the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, in opposition to the resisting party’s showing. And the party seeking discovery is required to comply with Rule 26(b)(1)’s proportionality limits on discovery requests; is subject to Rule 26(g)(1)’s requirement to certify “that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry: … (B) with respect to a discovery request…, it is: (i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law; (ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action”; and faces Rule 26(g)(3) sanctions “[i]f a certification violates this rule without substantial justification.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g)(1)(B), 26(g)(3); see generally Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 475-77, 493¬95 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Discovery
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff asserted claims from two different patents against Apple. Apple filed an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) and moved to stay the case pending the IPR.
Continue reading