Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Vinotemp International (“Vinotemp”) brought suit against Wine Master Cellars, LLP (“Wine Master”). Wine Master filed a counterclaim for patent infringement. Prior to trial, Vinotemp moved to preclude Wine Master from offering evidence of damages at trial.

As explained by the district court, “Vinotemp moves to exclude Wine Master’s evidence of damages on two grounds: (1) Wine Master failed to properly disclose its damages categories and computations under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (e); and (2) Wine Master’s damages are impermissibly speculative.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Positive Technologies, Inc. (“Positive Technologies”) filed a patent infringement action against Sony Electronics and Amazon, among others. Amazon filed a motion for entry of the Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s Model Order regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases (the “Model Order”). The Model Order provides for specific limits on e-discovery.

There are several provisions of the Model Order that should be noted in particular:

“General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 shall not include metadata absent a showing of good cause. However, fields showing the date and time that the document was sent and received, as well as the complete distribution list, shall generally be included in the production.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Benjamin Grobler (“Grobler”) filed a patent infringement action against Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“Sony”) alleging direct and indirect (both inducing and contributory) infringement. Grobler subsequently filed an amended complaint that removed the contributory infringement claim and asserted a claim for indirect infringement limited to inducing infringement. Sonly filed a motion dismiss the inducing claim.

As explained by the district court, “Grobler filed this suit against Sony, alleging that Sony infringes the ‘084 Patent by making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, systems for data vending, including the Sony PlayStation Network system. Id. at ¶ 9. Grobler also alleged that Sony infringed one or more claims of the ‘084 Patent by contributing to and/or inducing its customers’ infringement using such systems. Id. Grobler then filed the AC, limiting the indirect infringement claim to a claim that Sony indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘084 Patent by inducing its customers’ infringement using the Sony PlayStation Network system. AC at ¶ 10. Sony now moves to dismiss the induced infringement claims for failure to meet the pleading requirements for indirect patent infringement.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a set of mixed rulings for the parties, the district court denied the parties’ motions for new trial, found Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple’s patents, invalidated certain claims of one of Samsung’s patents, denied Samsung’s motion for indefiniteness of certain of Apple’s patents and denied Apple’s motion for enhanced damages.

Samsung moved for a new trial asserting that the trial was manifestly unfair. Samsung asserted that: “1) the trial time limitation prejudiced Samsung; (2) allowing Apple
to point out to the jury which Samsung witness were not called prejudiced Samsung; (3) Samsung’s witnesses were barred from making some arguments, where Apple’s witnesses were allowed to make other arguments; (4) Samsung was required to lay foundation for documents while Apple was not; (5) Samsung was forbidden to play advertisements while Apple was not; and (6) Samsung could not use depositions to cross-examine Apple’s witnesses while Apple was allowed to used deposition testimony during cross examination.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Azure Networks, LLC and Tri-County Excelsior Foundation (“Plaintiffs,” “Azure” or “TCEF”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants, including Qualcomm and Marvell, among others. As explained by the court, “[t]he ‘129 Patent is entitled ‘Personal Area Network with Automatic Attachment and Detachment’ and discloses a Personal Area Network (“PAN”), which is managed by a hub device and can support wireless “attachment” of multiple Personal Electronic Accessories (“PEAs”). ‘129 Patent at 3:10-32.”

The court further explained the ownership of the patent as follows: “Robert Donaghey, the sole inventor of the ‘129 Patent, assigned his rights to BBN Technologies Corp. (“BBN”) in 2007, who then assigned the ‘129 Patent to Azure. Azure is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview, Texas. Complaint at 2. In June 2010, Azure donated numerous patents and patent applications (including the application that later issued as the patent-in-suit) to TCEF. TCEF is a Texas non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas. Id. Only July 30, 2010, TCEF and Azure entered into an exclusive license agreement whereby Azure received a ‘worldwide, transferable, exclusive license under the [‘129 Patent], with the right to sublicense others, to (i) make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import and lease any products, (ii) use and perform any method, process, and/or services, and (iii) otherwise practice any invention in any manner, such that Azure has full right to enforce and/or sublicense the [‘129 Patent].'”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Parkervision, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Qualcomm. Qualcomm answered the complaint and alleged an affirmative defense of inequitable conduct and a counterclaim that included a claim for inequitable conduct. Parkervision moved to strike the affirmative defense and the counterclaims pertaining to inequitable conduct, among other defenses and claims.

As explained by the district court, “Qualcomm counterclaims that ParkerVision’s ‘551 patent is unenforceable due to ParkerVision’s inequitable conduct and that the other five ParkerVision patents — ‘518, ‘371, ‘734, ‘342, and ‘845 — are also unenforceable because they stem from the ‘551 patent. (Doc. No. 91, ¶¶ 69-116.) All six of the inequitable conduct counterclaims thus rest on the factual allegations regarding the ‘551 patent. Specifically, Qualcomm sets forth three theories of inequitable conduct, alleging that Michael Q. Lee, the ‘551 patent’s prosecuting attorney, and David F. Sorrells, an inventor: (1) “buried” the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) with references; (2) belatedly disclosed a material reference to the PTO; and (3) materially misrepresented four references to the PTO. Qualcomm urges the Court to consider the alleged inequitable conduct cumulatively, as a “course of deliberate egregious misconduct.” (Id. ¶ 35.)”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Blue Spike, LLC (“Blue Spike”) filed a patent infringement action against Biolink Solutions LTD. (“Biolink”) and Biometric, LLC. Biolink is a Russian company that has no offices, employees, agents, distributors or related entities in Texas, but does business in Texas according to the complaint. Blue Spike served Biolink with the complaint through the Texas Secretary of State. Biolink moved to quash service of the summons on the ground that it was not served through the procedures set forth in the Hague Convention.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the recent Federal Circuit decision in the Apple v. Samsung case and the district court’s application of that reasoning to find that a permanent injunction should not issue in Apple’s favor, many predicted that it would be very difficult to obtain a permanent injunction in patent cases going forward where many components are at issue. Not so fast.

As the district court explained in the Brocade Communications Systems (“Brocade”) v. A10 Networks (“A10”), upon the showing of an appropriate causal nexus a permanent injunction should issue. “Some have suggested that these standards herald the death, or at least the wounding, of the permanent injunction in patent cases involving hardware or software products with hundreds or thousands of components. One standard in particular – the “casual nexus” standard – bears the brunt of this discussion. Whether those opinions are fair or even accurate is something this court cannot say. What this court can say, however, is that whatever the “trend” of permanent injunctions in such cases, the Federal Circuit has made clear that injunctions can and should continue to issue upon the assembly and presentation of an appropriate record. After careful consideration of the parties’ voluminous papers and substantial oral arguments, the court is persuaded that the record in this case, which shows a clear causal nexus between Brocade’s loss of exclusivity in its inventions and A10’s infringement, is one such example.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Danisco US, Inc. (“Danisco”) filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that its Rapid Starch Liquefaction products (“RSL products”) do not infringe certain patents held by Novozymes and that the patent-in-suit is invalid. Danisco and Novoyzymes are two of the major competitors in the field of developing and supplying industrial enzymes used in the process of converting corn into ethanol fuel.

Novozymes moved to dismiss the action and asserted that Danisco did not allege, and could not allege, that Novozymes took any affirmative act to enforce the patent-in-suit against Danisco. Danisco asserted that there was an actual controversy between the parties because it could be reasonably inferred that Novozymes obtained the patent with the hopes of asserting it against Danisco’s products.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a patent infringement action brought by Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) against thirteen separate defendants, grouped into seven issuers of electronic gift cards, the Eastern District of Texas decided to sever the defendants as the case got closer to trial. As explained by the court, “[t]his is the sixth lawsuit that Alexsam has pursued in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,000,608 (“the ‘608 patent”) and 6,189,787 (“the ‘787 patent”), which relate to stored value/debit cards. The final pretrial conference is currently scheduled March 4, 2013, with a single trial to begin no more than four weeks later. Given the unique issues that exist within the defendant/defendant groups and the complexities involved in attempting to try this case in one trial in less than two months, the Court must sever the seven groups of defendants into their own separate cause of action.”
Continue reading