Published on:

by

In the patent infringement action between Cobra International, Inc. (“Cobra”) and BCNY International, Inc. (“BCNY”), BCNY filed a motion to compel several documents, including a litigation funding agreement. Cobra opposed the motion asserting that the person funding the litigation was not making decisions regarding the lawsuit and was not interfering with the prosecution of the litigation. BCNY asserted that it was entitled to the document to determine if the patent had transferred.

As explained by the district court, “[i]n response to request for production number 32, which pertains to the litigation funding agreement, Mr. Eavzan stated in his declaration that ‘Cobra continues to own the ‘858 patent. The person or entity funding Cobra’s prosecution of the lawsuit against [BCNY] is not making the decisions for Cobra regarding the above-styled lawsuit, is not interfering with the independence and professional judgment of Cobra’s counsel relating to the above-styled lawsuit, and is not receiving confidential communications between Cobra and its counsel relating to the above-styled lawsuit.'”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Porto Technology Co., LTD (“Porto”) filed a patent infringement action against Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”). During the litigation, Verizon moved to compel communications between two of the plaintiffs, who are brothers, and counsel. As explained by the district court, the court began by looking at “communications between Ji-Soo Lee, Heung-Soo Lee (“Lee Brothers”) and counsel. Obviously, any communications between Plaintiff Ji-Soo Lee and his counsel pertaining to this or directly related infringement litigation is covered by attorney-client privilege. Communications between Heung-Soo Lee and his counsel do not appear to be similarly cloaked. Any privilege that existed was waived by Heung-Soo Lee by voluntarily disclosing communications concerning this — and related litigation — with both the Court and the Defendant, Verizon. Over 100 unsolicited documents pertaining to the ‘518 and ‘413 patents have been received and retained by the Clerk of this Court.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between competing producers of satellites and satellite networking systems, ViaSat plaintiffs asserted that Space Systems/Loral infringed the ‘875 patent. As explained by the district court, the ViaSat plaintiffs are corporations that develop commercial and military satellite and digital communication technologies. SS/L is a wholly owned subsidiary of Loral, and both SS/L and Loral are also involved in the satellite business. In 2006, ViaSat and SS/L began negotiating over the possibility of collaborating on a major satellite construction project.

SS/L moved for summary judgment arguing that the earliest date at which ViaSat’s claims to the ‘875 Patent had written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 was March 25, 2009. The ‘875 Patent is a “continuation-in-part” application, and ViaSat argued that it claims priority to a series of provisional applications that it filed in 2006.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff NetAirus Technologies, LLC (“NetAirus”) asserted that Apple infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,103,380 (the “‘380 Patent”). The ‘380 Patent claims methods in which a “handset unit [ ] configured to a personal digital assistant (PDA)” wirelessly communicates over both a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”). Apple filed a Daubert Motion to exclude the expert reports and opinions of NetAirus’ survey experts and any references to those opinions in the opinion of NetAirus’ damage expert.

After reciting the standards for a Daubert challenge, the district court addressed the specific survey opinions at issue. “No portion of the Marylander and Berger surveys directly accounted for all of limitations of the asserted claims; specifically, the surveys did not ask consumers about the limitations concerning transmission power. Mot., Dkt. 424 at 3-4, 9-12. Apple argues that the failure to align the scope of the claimed invention with the scope of the features explored in the survey means that this case is on all fours with Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung, No. 6:09-cv-203-LED-JDL, 2011 WL 7563820 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2011). In Fractus, the plaintiff commissioned two surveys to value “incorporating internal antennas in cell phones in place of external antennas” and “the relative importance of internal antennas in cell phones to consumers.” 2011 WL 7563820 at *1. The court excluded the surveys because they measured the value of something -¬internal vs. external antennas – that was more broad than what was covered by the patents — specific improvements to internal antennas. Id.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs Kim Laube & Co. (“Laube”) brought this patent infringement action against Defendant Wahl Clipper Corp. (“Wahl”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,473,973 (“the ‘973 Patent”), which is titled “Disposable Cutting Head for Clippers.” After jury and bench trials, Laube filed a motion dismiss all patent related claims and counterclaims because the Federal Circuit rejected Laube’s challenge to the reexamination’s invalidation of claims 1-5 of the ‘973 Patent; and (ii) Laube granted Wahl a covenant not to sue. Wahl opposed the Motion.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

As a result of Samsung’s alleged violation of the protective order, Magistrate Judge Grewal previously ordered Samsung to produce to Apple emails and communications by Samsung employees that would shed light on the scope of the alleged protective order violation and to make available for deposition various witnesses by October 16, 2013. Samsung appealed from the Magistrate Judge’s order to the district court.

Samsung’s motion raised three arguments: (1) the order would “improperly abrogate privilege and work-product protection,” (2) the order may “require Samsung to violate other protective orders,” and (3) the order’s “scope of compelled information is grossly overbroad.” The district court rejected each argument.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action that was originally filed against a number of defendants, plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) moved for a continuance of the impending trial date set for October 2013. To support the motion, plaintiff notified the district court that it had terminated its relationship with its counsel of record and suggested that it anticipates litigation between itself and its counsel of record. Alexsam requested a delay in the trial setting so that it could secure new counsel.

The district court had previously conducted a consolidated trial on Defendants’ invalidity claims in May 2013. The jury found each of the asserted claims valid. As explained by the district court, “Shortly after the invalidity trial, Plaintiff and Best Buy, Inc. settled the remaining issues between them (Doc. No. 270 in 2:13-cv-2). The Court then tried the infringement issues in Alexsam, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. (2:13-cv-3) and Alexsam, Inc. v. The Gap, Inc. (2:13-cv-4) in June 2013. The Barnes & Noble trial was conducted June 3-7, 2013, and the Gap trial was conducted June 24-28, 2013. Both juries found no infringement (Doc. No. 219 in 6:13-cv-3 and Doc. No. 243 in 6:13-cv-4).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Unwired Planet LLC (“Unwired Planet”) filed a patent infringement action against Google and it originally identified 124 claims from ten patents as its asserted claims against Google. Unwired subsequently reduced the number of its claims. At the August 20, 2013 case management conference, the parties offered different proposals for further reduction of Unwired’s asserted claims as well as reduction of Google’s prior art references.

With respect to reducing the prior art references, Google asserted that limitations on its prior art defenses “has the effect of depriving Google of viable defenses to Unwired Planet’s claims,” but proposed a reduction if the court directed it. Unwired disagreed and proposed its own reductions to Google’s prior art references. The district court then ordered 12 references per patent and no more than 40 claims asserted after claim construction and 4 references per patent and no more than 20 references before trial.

Google sought reconsideration of the district court’s order and the district court found that it had committed clear error.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Eclipse IP LLC (“Eclipse”) filed several patent infringement actions against a number of defendants, in which it alleged indirect infringement (both inducing and contributory) as well as willfulness. The district court sua sponte issued an order regarding the indirect infringement claims as well as the willfulness allegations.

The district court analyzed the recent Federal Circuit decision that addressed the knowledge requirements for indirect infringement claims. “As discussed in length in the recent decision in Labyrinth Optical Technologies, LLC v. Fujitsu America, Inc., the Federal Circuit has recently resolved whether a defendant must have this knowledge before litigation begins. 8:13-cv-00030-AG-MLG (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013), ECF No. 33. In In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing System Patent Litigation, the Federal Circuit held that the plaintiff had met the knowledge requirement to bring an indirect infringement claim when it provided notice of the patent via service of the original complaint. 681 F.3d 1323, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012); accord Labyrinth, 8:13-cv-00030-AG-MLG, slip op. at 8-9 (analyzing Bill of Lading’s treatment of this issue in detail and holding patent-holder sufficiently alleged defendant’s knowledge in amended complaint based on service of original complaint); Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc., No. C-12-1011 EMC, 2012 WL 4514138, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2012) (holding that in Bill of Lading, post-complaint knowledge is sufficient). Thus, to meet this knowledge requirement in pleading indirect infringement, Plaintiff need not necessarily allege Defendants’ pre-suit knowledge of the patents. However, what knowledge Plaintiff does allege must still be plausible.”
Continue reading