Published on:

by

Petitioner, BlackBerry Corporation and BlackBerry Limited (“Blackberry”), filed a petition on October 30, 2012, for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 6,871,048 (“the ‟048 patent”). On March 18, 2013, the Board instituted trial on claims 1-12 of the ‟048 patent based on all grounds of unpatentability alleged in the petition.

After institution of trial, Patent Owner, MobileMedia Ideas LLC (“MobileMedia”), filed a patent owner response, Blackberry filed a reply, and an oral hearing was held on October 18, 2013. On December 16, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding, which the PTAB only granted in part, terminating the proceeding with respect to Blackberry, but not with respect to MobileMedia.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On August 11, 2010, VirnetX filed suit alleging that Apple and several other defendants infringed several U.S. Patents, which generally describe a method for transparently creating a virtual private network (“VPN”) between a client computer and a target computer or disclosing a secure domain name service. The accused products were Apple’s VPN On Demand and FaceTime. The jury returned a verdict in favor of VirnetX, finding that the patens were not invalid and that Apple infringed the asserted claims. To compensate VirnetX for Apple’s infringement, the jury awarded VirnetX $368,160,000 in damages.

After the jury trial, VirnetX filed a motion for an ongoing royalty against Apple, requesting that the royalty rate be enhanced from .52% to 1.52%. VirnetX argued the royalty rate should be trebled because of changed circumstances in light of the Georgia-Pacific factors and Apple’s now willful infringement and because the bargaining positions of the parties would have dramatically shifted in favor of VirnetX. VirnetX also relied on Apple’s continuing infringement post-trial, and its inability to easily implement the non-infringing alternatives discussed at trial.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Zurn Industries, Inc. (“Zurn”) moved to exclude Sloan Valve Company’s (“Sloan”) consultant witness and other testimony based on the consultant’s investigation. The patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,607,635, entitled “Flush Valve Handle Assembly Providing Dual Mode Operation” (the “‘635 Patent”), pertains “to flush valves for use with plumbing fixtures such as toilets, and more specifically to improvements in the bushing of the actuating handle assembly that will provide for user-selectable, dual mode operation of the flush valve.” As explained by the district court, the improvement is a mechanism that allows a user to select one of two flush volumes based on the direction of actuation of the handle: a full flush volume to evacuate solid waste from the bowl or a reduced flush volume to remove liquid waste.

The district court explained that Sloan hired Leone Flosi of Quest Consultants Int’l Ltd. (“Quest”) to perform an investigation of bathrooms containing either Sloan or Zurn manual dual flush valves and handles at Sloan’s damage expert, Mr. Bero’s, direction. Specifically, Sloan hired Mr. Flosi and Quest to “assist in estimating the ratio of collateral product sales relative to manual dual-flush flushometer valves.” Mr. Bero used this data to project and calculate the profits that Sloan allegedly lost on collateral sales of unpatented products.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Sonic Industry (“Sonic”) filed a patent infringement action against iRobot Corporation (“iRobot”). iRobot filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the patent infringement complaint. The district court issued a memorandum order sua sponte because of some “problematic aspects of that responsive pleading.”

The district court noted that iRobot had regularly “coupled its invocation of the disclaimer made available under appropriate circumstances by Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5) with the language ‘and, therefore, denies those allegations.'” The district court found that these answers were problematic. “But it is of course oxymoronic for a party to assert (presumably in good faith) that it lacks even enough information to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, then proceed to deny it. Because such a denial is at odds with the pleader’s obligations under Rule 11(b), the quoted language is stricken from each of those paragraphs of the Answer.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plantronics, Inc. (“Plantronics”) filed a patent infringement action against ALIPH, Inc. (“ALIPH”). After expert reports were submitted, ALIPH moved to exclude the expert report of Plantronics’ infringement expert.

At the heart of the action is the fit of ear buds in a human ear. However, the district court found that Plantronics’ expert had done very little infringement analysis in this regard. As the district court explained, “plaintiff’s infringement expert, Professor Katz, did nothing more than try defendants’ products on various (unidentified) ear molds and state that defendants’ products infringed based on conclusory ipse dixit recitations of claim limitations with no explanation or analysis.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between Emblaze and Apple, Apple filed a motion to stay the case pending the recent grant of certiorari in Akamai v. Limelight Networks. In Akamai, a divided en banc Federal Circuit panel held that Akamai did not have to prove that any Limelight customer directly infringed its patent and that Limelight’s inducement alone is sufficient to prove infringement. In motion to stay, Apple argued that a reversal of the Federal Circuit’s decision could effectively end Emblaze’s case because Emblaze has no proof that any Apple customer directly infringes the method claims at issue.

Emblaze opposed the motion arguing that much of the case would not be subject to Akamai because 10 of the claims in suit are apparatus claims, which Akamai does not address. Emblaze further explained that because Emblaze’s damages theory is not dependent on the number of claims Apple infringes, a reversal in Akamai would substantially change the case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) filed a patent infringement action against Google for infringement of its “Truenames” patents. Google filed a motion for sanctions based on a contention that PersonalWeb systematically deleted relevant emails when it reasonably anticipated litigation. PersonalWeb opposed the motion arguing that it had an email retention policy and timely implemented a litigation hold shortly after the filing of the lawsuit against Google.

In working on its analysis of the motion, the court stated that PersonalWeb’s duty to preserve evidence arose when litigation became reasonably foreseeable. Google asserted that PersonalWeb anticipated litigation no later than June 2011, before it even acquired the patents-in-suit because there were discussions regarding future litigation against major technology companies during weekly lunch meetings. The court agreed that “PersonalWeb probably acquired the patents with an eye toward litigation. However, it is difficult to say that litigation was reasonably foreseeable before PersonalWeb even acquired the thing which would give it standing to sue.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Orbit Irrigation Products (“Orbit”) filed a patent infringement action against Sunhills International (“Sunhills”). After the completion of certain discovery, Sunhills filed a motion to compel. Sunhills contended that Orbit had failed to provide a computation of damages as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and failed to produce its documents related to its damages. As a result, Sunhills asked the district Court to bar Orbit from introducing any evidence related to damages beyond that already produced.

In its disclosure and in discovery, Orbit claimed that it suffered $19 million in damages. The court explained that “[o]n its face Rule 26 requires Orbit to provide Sunhills both with a computation of each category of damages it claims and with the non-privileged documents on which it bases those calculations. Orbit asserted a fixed number for damages suffered from price compression ($19 million) as compared to the lack of any concrete number offered for reputational damages. Sunhills has a right to know from the outset how Orbit reached that number. Such disclosure does not prevent a party from changing theories as the case proceeds.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After trial and the denial of post-trial motions, AT&T Operations, Inc. (“AT&T”) filed motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). AT&T argued that the e-mail notice of electronic filings (NEF’s) that defense counsel received did not provide them with “notice” that Defendants’ substantive post-trial motions had been resolved. To make this argument, AT&T noted that the e-mail notifications defense counsel received only contained language regarding the district court’s grant of their motions for leave to file sealed documents, but failed to mention the denial of their substantive post-trial motions, which was provided in the same orders. Nonetheless, the district court noted that AT&T did, however, receive e-mail notifications that the Court had entered an order on Plaintiff’s bill of costs and had denied Defendants’ motion for new trial and JMOL on invalidity which were not sealed pleadings.

AT&T also argued that the docket entries for the orders at issue were modified two days later to reflect the denial of the substantive post-trial motions, but no new electronic notices were sent by the district court’s electronic case filing (ECF) system to reflect these amended docket entries. Accordingly, AT&T contended that based on the NEFs they received, counsel believed the motions for JMOL and new trial on damages and non-infringement had not been disposed of and remained pending before the Court. As a result, AT&T claimed that it “did not receive sufficient notice of the substance of the orders entered justifies reopening the time to file an appeal.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Clouding IP (“Clouding”) filed a patent infringement action against Rackspace, which alleged direct, indirect, and willful infringement of the patents-in-suit. The district court granted defendant Rackspace’s motion to dismiss with respect to indirect infringement, but also granted Clouding leave to amend its complaint. In that ruling, the district court found that Clouding had adequately plead the knowledge requirement for induced infringement, but the district court dismissed Clouding’s claims because the First Amended Complaint “failed to plead facts from which the Court [could] infer intent.”

Clouding filed a second amended complaint, which again alleged claims for inducing infringement. Rackspace moved to dismiss the indirect infringement claims. Rackspace’s motion presented a narrow issue as to whether Clouding failed to sufficiently plead the element of intent for its inducement claims.
Continue reading