Published on:

by

Phoenix Modular Elevator, Inc. (“Phoenix”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against T.L. Shield & Associates, Inc. (“Shield”) and Modular Elevator Manufacturing, Inc. (“MEM”). The patent at issue, United States Patent No. 6,079,520 (the “520 patent”), is entitled “Method of Retro-Fitting Elevators to Existing Buildings.” As explained by the district court, the ‘520 patent describes a method of manufacturing an elevator and installing it onto an existing, multistory building.

During the case, Phoenix learned that a smaller than expected number of potentially infringing elevators were not actually infringing. As a result, Phoenix signed a covenant not to sue and explained that it was no longer economical to litigate the case. Phoenix then filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After a discovery dispute erupted in this patent infringement action, the court held a telephonic hearing on defendants’ motion to compel discovery and for sanctions and plaintiff’s cross-motion for a protective order. Although the court denied both motions without prejudice, it “chastised both sides for the contentiousness and unprofessionalism that has marred discovery in this case, particularly the depositions.”

The court went further finding that “[b]oth sides are at fault and the attorneys for both sides must change their behavior significantly and immediately.” The court also reminded the parties that “[i]n the March 3, 2014 preliminary pretrial conference order, the court ordered that ‘the parties and their attorneys must at all times treat everyone involved in this lawsuit with courtesy and consideration… and must reasonably accommodate each other in all matters.'”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Four weeks prior to trial, defendant Cerner Corporation (“Cerner”) filed a motion to join a summary judgment motion filed by a defendant in a related case involving the same patents. In the summary judgment motion in the related case involving Allscripts, Allscripts argued that the plaintiff’s (RLIS) patents claim ineligible subject matter under section 101 of the Patent Act.

The motion in the related case was filed in May 2014 and gained strength after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int.’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Yet, Cerner did nothing. As explained by the district court, “[i]n fact, the Court held a lengthy motions hearing on October 1, 2014. Many of the numerous motions argued that day were joined by both Cerner and Allscripts. Rather than asking to join Allscripts’ section 101 motion, Cerner made a tactical decision to sit on the sideline while Allscripts argued the Alice issue to the Court.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Princeton Digital Image Corp. (“Princeton Digital”) filed a patent infringement action against Hewlett-Packard and Hewlett Packard filed a summary judgment motion. With the summary judgment motion pending, Princeton Digital filed a letter with the district court requesting that the district court order a mediation between the parties pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.9.

The district court also received a letter from Hewlett-Packard opposing Princeton Digital’s mediation request, arguing that their outstanding motion for summary judgment should be determined first.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff, Freed Designs, Inc. (“Freed Designs”), filed a patent infringement action defendant Sig Sauer. Robert Freed is the sole inventor of the ‘764 Patent, titled “Grip Extender For Hand Gun.” Freed is also the sole owner and President of Plaintiff Freed Designs. Plaintiff alleged that Sig Sauer makes, sells, and offers to sell magazine extenders that infringe the ‘764 Patent. Sig Sauer answered the complaint and raised an affirmative defense of lack of standing. Sig Sauer then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

After the action was filed, Freed executed an “Assignment of the Invention and Patent Application” transferring to Free Designs his “entire right, title, and interest in and to” the ‘764 Patent. A few months later, Freed executed another assignment titled “Assignment of Rights, Title and Interest in Invention.” This second assignment was styled as a nunc pro tunc assignment, purporting to have an effective date of August 16, 2005 (the issue date of the ‘764 Patent).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendant Adobe Systems (“Adobe”) filed a Daubert motion seeking to limit the testimony of plaintiff EveryScapes’ expert, Dr. Maja Bystrom (“Dr. Bystrom”), for three reasons.

First, Adobe sought to exclude the testimony that the Mok3 Perspective Clone Brush practiced claims of EveryScape’s patent, partly because Dr. Bystrom allegedly relied on the wrong source code in reaching her opinions about Mok3. As explained by the district court, “[t]he admission of expert testimony, as the parties are well aware, is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Newell Puerto Rico, Ltd. v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 20 F.3d 15, 20 (1st Cir. 1994). “[C]ourts must be cautious – except when defects are obvious on the face of a proffer – not to exclude debatable scientific evidence without affording the proponent… adequate opportunity to defend its admissibility.” Cortes-Irizarry v. Corporacion Insular de Seguros, 111 F.3d 184, 188 (1st Cir. 1997).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs’ filed a motion for a standard protective order to prevent the defendant from sharing confidential information. The district court denied the motion because the motion was not in the form of a joint stipulated as required by the local rules.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Reflectix, Inc., Innovative Insulation, Inc., TVM Building Products, Inc., Energy Efficient Solutions, LLC, and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion to stay pending and Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) that was filed with the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (“PTAB”). The plaintiff opposed the motion to stay on the grounds that the IPR had not yet been granted for review by the PTAB.

In analyzing the motion to say, the district court noted that “it has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to stay proceedings. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (‘The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.’). How to best manage the court’s docket ‘calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.’ Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the defendant filed a motion to strike the “errata sheets” to deposition testimony of two of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Neill Luebke and Robert Sinclair. The plaintiff opposed the motion to strike.

As explained by the district court, “[t]here is an old joke that only lawyers and house painters can change black to white, and vise versa. In a sense, that is the situation this motion presents. Defendant complains that the plaintiffs’ witnesses Luebke and Sinclair submitted errata sheets regarding their respective depositions which starkly changed the substance of their testimonies. For example, in several instances, Sinclair changed his deposition answer from ‘no’ to ‘yes.’ In other places, a somewhat tenuous answer of, ‘I believe not,’ was changed to a dogmatic and emphatic ‘yes.’ Similarly, Luebke changed, ‘I don’t believe so,’ to ‘yes,’ and ‘At the present time, I have not,’ to ‘Yes.’ And there are other examples.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After a jury trial in which TransPerfect was awarded damages, TransPerfect moved for an award of supplemental damages under 35 U.S.C. ยง 284 on the theory that the jury did not award it damages for infringement that occurred after December 31, 2011. TransPerfect contended that the jury’s damage award of $1,006,002 failed to account for its post-2011 damages because the defendant, MotionPoint, failed to produce any financial records later than 2011.

TransPerfect contended that the parties’ experts were therefore unable to examine any post-2011 financial information and the jury could not have included these damages in its verdict.
Continue reading