Published on:

by

As the Open Text v. Box patent case gets closer to trial, Open Text sought to preclude Box from asking the jury to award damages in the form of a fully paid-up lump sum that would cover the life of the patents-in-suit. Open Text argued that such a result would preclude Open Text from seeking an injunction or post-verdict ongoing royalties, which would improperly allow the jury to decide equitable issues.

Although the district court agreed that a lump-sum award might indeed preclude the injunction and/or post-verdict ongoing royalties, the district court stated that “there is no doubt that a fully paid-up lump sum is an allowable form of damages. See, e.g., Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (discussing the licensor and licensee’s option of entering into an “upfront, paid-in-full royalty” in the hypothetical negotiation).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between defendant Adobe Systems, Inc. (“Adobe”) and plaintiff Blue Spike, LLC (“Blue Spike”), Adobe filed a motion to strike the infringement contentions (“ICs”) filed by Blue Spike. In the motion, Adobe contended that Blue Spike’s ICs fail to comply with the Patent Local Rules for the following reasons: (1) the ICs fail to provide a claim chart for each of the accused instrumentalities and instead group together all four products in violation of Patent Local Rule 3-1(c); (2) the claim chart cites to exhibits that discuss Auditude’s (a company acquired by Adobe) products generally–both fingerprinting and ad insertion products–without identifying the particular product to which each exhibit refers, rendering the documentary support insufficient under Patent Local Rule 3-2; (3) the ICs chiefly rely on online articles published by third parties that do not specifically identify the accused products and are therefore insufficient under Patent Local Rule 3-2; and (4) the ICs do not properly set forth allegations of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in violation of Patent Local Rule 3-1(e); and (5) fail to allege indirect infringement, willful infringement, or assert a priority date in accordance with the Patent Local Rules.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the defendants’ claim construction experts. The plaintiff’s motion was based on the argument that the defendants’ disclosures did not comply with local rules in that they did not identify the actual opinions of the experts.

The district court agreed with plaintiff’s position. “After consideration of the briefing and of Defendants’ expert disclosures, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendants’ disclosures do not comply with Local Rule 4.2.d.2. insofar as Defendants simply identify the general subjects on which their experts may testify, but do not identify the actual opinions Defendants expect the experts to offer.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After trial, HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”) filed a motion seeking to recover attorney fees and costs from plaintiff’s attorneys as well as from plaintiff Intellect Wireless, Inc. (“IW”). IW withdrew its initial opposition and conceded that the case was exceptional within the meaning of the Patent Act. HTC also contended that a finding should also be made that the attorneys for IW are jointly and personally required to satisfy HTC’s attorney fees and costs because, among other things, IW’s attorneys unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In an earlier filed decision, the district court had previously found that Escort and its defense counsel had knowingly misled the plaintiff, Fleming, which warranted a sanction of attorney fees. As explained by the district court, “they falsely claimed that the source code identified as ESC17363 was the current operating source code for Escort’s commercially sold products and that it provided a complete defense to Fleming’s patent infringement charges.”

After awarding attorney’s fees, the district court turned to Fleming’s motion to compel the production of certain documents. “Fleming seeks discovery of a wide variety of documents and communications in an effort to determine if Escort fabricated ESC17363 and falsely represented that it was created in the normal course of product development.”
In response, Escort argued that all of the material sought by Fleming was protected by the work product doctrine and the attorney client privilege.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the Defendants requested that the court order a further Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of one of the deponents, Mr. Pang. In the motion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s counsel objected more than 300 times during the course of Mr. Pang’s deposition, and the objections impeded the fair examination of Mr. Pang.

In response, the Plaintiff argued that Defendants failed to show good cause to compel a second deposition of Mr. Pang and pointed out that during the deposition, Defendants never raised any issue with Mr. Pang’s responses or with Plaintiff’s counsel’s objections. Plaintiff also argued that its objections were necessary and were stated in a concise, nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner and noted that Mr. Pang answered every question after Plaintiff’s counsel stated his objection on the record.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of a standard protective order after the defendant would not agree to sign a stipulated protective order. As explained by the district court, the plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging that they infringed on several patents.

After the lawsuit was filed, plaintiffs’ counsel requested that defendants’ counsel sign off on a stipulated protective order to protect certain confidential/proprietary materials that the parties were going to exchange in discovery. The district court explained that “[t]his is standard operating procedure in patent cases in federal court and the parties and the Court routinely sign off on them in these cases.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs Smartflash LLC and Smartflash Technologies Limited (collectively “Smartflash”) filed patent infringement actions against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”), HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively “HTC”) (all collectively “Defendants”) alleging infringement of several patents.

Smartflash’s expert on damages, Mr. Mills, based portions of his damage calculations on surveys conducted by Dr. William Wecker. As explained by the district court, Smartflash hired Dr. Wecker, a statistician, to conduct four surveys related to consumer purchasing decisions of the accused products: (1) an “App Store” survey; (2) a “Movies and TV Shows” survey; (3) a “Music” survey; and (4) a “Books and Parental Controls” survey. Each of the surveys asked consumers if certain features “motivated” them to purchase accused products.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the pending patent infringement action between Netflix and Rovi, Netflix filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a ruling that Rovi’s patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. After the motion was filed, the district court “advised Netflix that it was entitled to only one motion for summary judgment in this case, that would be heard after claim construction, and that it needed to seek leave if it intended to go forward with the already-filed motion.”

The district court then found that as a matter of procedure Netflix’s motion was improperly filed. “Netflix did not seek leave of court, nor did it meet and confer with Rovi, prior to filing its early motion for summary judgment. The court also wholly rejects Netflix’s attempt to circumvent the court’s rules by re-characterizing its motion as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff, MyMedicalRecords (“MMR”), owns U.S. Patent No. 8,498,883 (the ‘883 Patent) entitled “Method for Providing a User with a Service for Accessing and Collecting Prescriptions.” MMR asserted claims 1-3 of the ‘883 Patent against Quest Diagnostics, Inc., WebMD Health Corp., WebMD Health Services Group Inc., and Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

As explained by the district court, the asserted claims are method claims directed to providing users with a secure and private way to collect, access, and manage drug prescriptions online. Independent claim 1 recites a “means for scheduling one or more prescription refills concerning a drug prescription” limitation. Claims 2 and 3 depend on claim 1 and therefore incorporate this “means for scheduling” limitation by reference.
Continue reading