Published on:

by

Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action of non-infringement after it received a letter from IP Navigation Group (“IP Nav”). The letter invited the plaintiff to engage in a licensing discussion regarding the patent or patent of IP Nav’s client, which remained anonymous. After filing the declaratory judgment, the plaintiff sought and was granted permission by the district court to serve a subpoena on IP asking IP Nav to identify the anonymous patent holder along with the patent numbers for the patents referenced in the letter.

IP Nav then filed a motion to quash the subpoena in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that the subpoena was invalid for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court in Texas issued an order finding that IP Nav had raised “substantial questions” regarding the district court’s jurisdiction but determined it was appropriate for the district court in Wisconsin where the action was pending to determine that issue.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff filed multiple patent infringement actions against seven different defendants in many different district courts. The plaintiff moved to centralize the patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where there were seven actions pending in five separate districts. The responding defendants all opposed centralization. Based on the briefing before the panel and after a hearing, the panel held that the actions involved common questions of fact and that centralization of the actions would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses. The panel also found that centralization would promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. However, the panel determined that centralization was more appropriate in the Western District of Oklahoma (where one case was pending) rather than the Eastern District of Texas (where three cases were pending).

All seven actions concerned questions regarding the infringement and/or the invalidity of three patents pertaining to “smart meters” that are used to measure energy consumption and to collect those measurements over a wireless communication network. In each action, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, each of whom are utility companies, use infringing meters covered by the patents. As a result, the panel determined that “[c]entralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly on claim construction issues), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Google filed a motion to strike the revised damages expert report submitted by Oracle in their continuing battle over Android. In the second expert report, Oracle’s expert “estimated damages, from 2007 through 2011, to be $201.8 million for patent infringement, $823.9 million in unjust enrichment for copyright infringement (not deducting for expenses or apportionment), and $136.2 million in lost profits or $102.6 million in lost licensing fees for copyright infringement.” For the patent infringement matter, Oracle’s expert calculated damages using a hypothetical negotiation method beginning with a $100 million starting value that was based on real-world negotiations between the parties in 2006, then adjusted downward for patent apportionment, then adjusted upward for lost revenue that was expected from the licensing agreement.

Google moved to exclude the patent damages, among others, arguing that the damages cannot be based on a hypothetical lost license fee because Sun (Oracle’s predecessor) would never have licensed an incompatible version of Java to Google. The district court disagreed. The district court found that Oracle’s expert had “a non-speculative factual basis to value a license for an incompatible version of Java.” The district court found this appropriate because the analysis started with the real-world negotiations between Sun and Google for a compatible Java, and then adjusting that amount up to compensate for the incompatibility. “The amount of the upward adjustment was based on Sun’s own revenue projections for the value of compatibility. Dr. Cockburn’s calculation was based on real-world facts and not incurably speculative. Google fights the hypothetical by ignoring the legal requirement for a hypothetical negotiation that the licensing agreement must be reached as the result of a hypothetical meeting between the parties.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action against National Semiconductor Corporation alleging that National Semiconductor’s WEBENCH tools infringed plaintiff’s’ patent. National Semiconductor filed an amended answer and counterclaim asserting, among other things, that plaintiffs patent was invalid due to inequitable conduct based on plaintiffs’ failure to disclose material information about WEBENCH and other third-party tools to the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) during prosecution of the patent-in-suit.

National Semiconductor filed a motion to compel after, as it alleged, plaintiffs disclosed only certain privileged information that it considered helpful to its position during the deposition of individuals involved in the prosecution of the patent. Two of the inventors testified that they understood and complied with the duty of candor and one of the inventors testified that he relied on the advice of counsel. In addition, one of the prosecutors testified that he acted in good faith before the PTO. Other than disclosing this information, plaintiffs instructed the witnesses not to answer based on the attorney-client privilege, including, for example, whether one of the inventors provided patent counsel with documents such as prior art references.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action in the Middle District of Florida. Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California. Defendants emphasized in its transfer motion that the Eastern District of California was clearly more convenient than the Middle District of Florida. Ten months after the motion was filed, the Middle District of Florida concluded that the Eastern District of California was indeed a more convenient forum and therefore transfer was appropriate. “The Middle District of Florida emphasized that the transfer was necessary to promote the interests of justice, because the alleged acts of infringement and the uncontested evidence of record demonstrates that the vast majority of the activities relating to the alleged infringement took place and around the Eastern District of California.”

When the case arrived in the Eastern District of California, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-transfer the case back to the Middle District of Florida. Although the parties did not argue in the Middle District of Florida that the Eastern District of California lacked personal jurisdiction over certain of the defendants, the plaintiff now moved to retransfer the case because the Eastern District of California did not have personal jurisdiction over two of the defendants.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Internet Machines LLC (“iMac”) filed a patent infringement action against Alienware Corporation and PLX Technology, Inc. (“PLX”) and several other defendants alleging infringement of two patents pertaining to PCI Express switches. With respect to PLX, iMac moved to compel the production of various sales documentation for all sales of the accused products regardless of whether the products shipped to the United States. PLX produced a sales summary and underlying documents for all PCI Express switches shipped to the United States. PLX declined to produce any additional documentation relating to those switches shipped to international markets.

The primary disagreement centered on whether PCI Express switches which were not shipped to the United States qualify as a “sale” under 35 U.S.C. ยง 271. iMac contended that all sales, whether shipped domestically or internationally, are still accepted by PLX in its Sunnyvale, California office and therefore count as domestic sales and are relevant for calculating damages.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. (“ActiveVideo”) prevailed on a patent infringement action against Verizon Communications, Inc. (“Verizon”) before a jury, ActiveVideo moved for a permanent injunction. ActiveVideo moved to enjoin Verizon’s further use of Verizon’s Video on Demand (“VOD”) services offered through its FiOS system. Verizon opposed the motion and also asked for a “sunset” provision in the event the district court deemed an injunction appropriate. Verizon also asked the district court to stay any injunction pending appeal.

After reviewing the requirements of a permanent injunction in a patent infringement matter with particular reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the district court turned to analyzing the traditional four-factor test for determining whether an injunction was appropriate in this case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Spine Solutions, Inc. (“SSI”) sued Medtronic Sofamor Danek (“Medtronic”) for patent infringement alleging that three of Medtronic’s artificial disc implants infringed an SSI patent. The case proceeded to trial and the jury awarded $5.7 million in lost profits and an 18 percent royalty on the other infringing sales. The jury also determined that the infringement was willful.

Following the jury verdict, the district court doubled the damages and awarded attorneys’ fees against Medtronic. The district court also entered a permanent injunction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the decision in part, vacated in part and affirmed in part. With respect to the finding of lost profits, the Federal Circuit determined that lost profits were unavailable due to lack of standing. It also reversed a finding of the district court that one of the Medtronic products (the O-Mav) infringed the patent-in-suit and directed that the district court enter a finding of non-infringement with respect to that product. The Federal Circuit also reversed the willfulness finding and the injunction due to certain extraterritorial restrictions in the injunction. On remand, the Federal Circuit directed that, among other things, the district court determine the proper reasonable royalty to which SSI might be entitled on the infringing sales for which the jury awarded lost profits.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the ongoing action between Apple and Samsung, Apple filed a motion for a protective order seeking to prohibit one of Samsung’s attorneys from participating in any further depositions. Alternatively, Apple sought an order restricting the attorney from engaging in particularly abusive deposition acts, including belligerent and insulting treatment of witnesses, repeated interruptions, unilaterally terminating a deposition, uncivil treatment of opposing counsel, engaging in lengthy colloquy on the record, among other things.

Samsung objected to the order and denied that any in appropriate conduct had occurred at all Samsung also noted that Apple’s witnesses were Apple’s patent lawyers and agents who are accustomed to the adversarial process.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a case pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the district court entered an order that leave of court must be obtained before a summary judgment motion may be filed. Defendant filed a letter brief with the district court seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness.

The letter brief asserted that the claims in the patent-in-suit were indefinite based on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Datamize, the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a competitor on the basis that the claims that disclosed a software program which allowed people to author user interfaces for electronic kiosks were indefinite. The Federal Circuit focused on the patent’s use of the term “aesthetically pleasing” and whether that term met the standard for definiteness. The Federal Circuit found that definition of “aesthetically pleasing” could not depend on an undefined standard and that the definition could not be based on subjective opinion.
Continue reading