Published on:

by

In a recent decision from New Jersey, the district court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion because the plaintiff’s patents did not qualify as patentable subject matter under the machine-or-transformation, which the United States Supreme Court has recently determine remains a useful test in determining patentable subject matter. In re Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).

The patents at issue claim processes directed to a system for processing information from a template file to an application using “content instructions” and “customizable transmission format instructions” on a programmed computer. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s website infringed the patents because the website allowed customers to input information into a template as part of the purchase process. The defendant argued that the patents were invalid because they claim unpatentable abstract ideas.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a case involving application of the “first-filed action” doctrine and transfer, the district court in the Eastern District of Texas transferred a case as to one defendant but severed and kept the case as to two other defendants. One of the defendants in Texas, Interwoven, began the litigation, not in Texas, but in the Northern District of California by filing suit against Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. seeking a declaration that the Vertical patents were invalid and were not infringed by Interwoven. Vertical subsequently filed a patent infringement action on the same patents against Interwoven and two additional defendants, Samsung and LG, in the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung then filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California.

In analyzing the first-filed action doctrine on a motion to transfer, the district court agreed that the Interwoven action was filed first and that therefore the case against Interwoven should be transferred to the Northern District of California. The district court disagreed with Samsung, however, and found that the action against Samsung should remain in Texas as Samsung was not a party to the first filed case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The written description requirement is of heightened importance in determining the priority date for continuation patent applications. Without a sufficient written description that supports and details the claims of the patent, the priority date of the parent patent may be lost for the continuation application. This issue was recently addressed by the Federal Circuit in the Anascape, LTD. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) decision and the decision is useful to review to understand the consequences of failing to have sufficient support in the written description for claims in a continuation patent.

Click here for a more detailed discussion: Anascape, LTD. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.

______________________________

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The district court determined that plaintiff had waived the attorney-client privilege because the plaintiff’s in-house counsel revealed too much information in answering questions during a deposition. The defendants raised the waiver issue in the context of a motion to compel by contending that the plaintiff’s in-house counsel’s answers during a deposition revealed attorney-client communications and therefore waived the privilege regarding the plaintiff’s motivation in seeking the reissuance of its patent.

The district court found that the in-house counsel “expanded on the statements to the PTO, revealing that because of the issue of the different effective filing dates, there was a specific concern that the mixed subject matter claims were technically anticipated by” another published application. The in-house counsel also explained that there were additional communications between himself and other in-house and outside counsel that led to this concern. The district court found that these types of statements were sufficient to waive the attorney-client privilege.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In another decision involving sanctions for defendants failure to provide discovery, the district court for the Western District of Michigan granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The default was granted because the defendant had not participated in discovery. As the district court stated, “Defendants have not participated in discovery, but rather have refused to provide depositions or responses to [plaintiff’s] written discovery requests.”

The district court went on to note that defendants’ conduct was willful in that the defendants had ignored discovery deadlines and previous orders from the district court. “Defendants have ignored discovery deadlines and other obligations imposed both by the Rules of Civil Procedure and explicit orders of the Court.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent case in the Eastern District of Texas, the district court addressed the admissibility of a consumer survey to show demand for the patented features in accused products. The district court rejected plaintiff’s consumer surveys and granted the defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiff’s survey experts because the surveys did not measure the purported advantages of plaintiff’s technology.

The surveys measured whether consumers valued incorporating internal antennas in cell phones in place of external antennas. The problem with these surveys, however, was that plaintiff did not invent–and the patents did not claim–internal antennas for cell phones. Instead, the patents were directed only to one type of internal antenna that had increase advantages over other internal antennas and external antennas because of multiband functionality and reduced size. Thus, the surveys did not measure the value of plaintiff’s technology. “While Plaintiff claims that its experts contend that the patents-in-suit are ‘fundamental’ to internal antennas, the surveys are not tied to the alleged advantageous technical characteristics of the patents-in-suit. Put another way, the surveys do not measure how consumers value the purported advantages provided by Plaintiff’s technology.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

It is well settled law that all inventors who contribute to an invention must be named on the patent application. Nonetheless, where there are many inventors who contribute to the conceptions and reduction to practice of an invention, it can be difficult to determine who should be listed as the inventors on the patent application. But taking the time to do this right is also critical. Because the failure to name all co-inventors can render the patent unenforceable, particularly if one or more of the named inventors intended to deceive the patent office, it is very important to thoroughly analyze who should be named on the patent application. In addition, listing people who are not inventors as inventors can have the same dire consequences–the inability to enforce the patent. The recent case of Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fasteners Corp., 607 F.3d 817 (Fed. Cir. 2010) illustrates what can happen when an inventor misleads the patent office on the issue of who invented the invention covered by the patent.

Click here for a more detailed discussion of Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fasteners Corp.

______________________________

Continue reading
Published on:

by

After a serious delay by the defendant in providing discovery, the district court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer and enter a default judgment. The district court found that the defendant continually mislead the plaintiff and the court regarding its discovery obligations and caused the case to be delayed for several years by doing so. “This Court gave [defendant] numerous opportunities to provide the requested documents, yet it chose to produce incomplete responses. . . . [Defendant] and [its counsel] affirmatively misled Plaintiffs — and more importantly, this Court — as to the production of documents and compliance with Court orders. . . . By failing to provide the discovery as ordered, [defendant] has prevented Plaintiffs from pursuing their claims and delayed this litigation for nearly seven years.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent decision from the Federal Circuit, In Re Mostafazadeh, Case No. 2010-1260 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2011), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ (the “Board”) decision upholding the patent examiner’s rejection of certain claims of a reissue patent application. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board because the reissue application impermissibly attempted to recapture subject matter surrendered during prosecution of the original patent application.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent Number 6,034,423 (the “‘423 patent”), is directed to lead frame based semiconductor packaging. The ‘423 patent describes two embodiments, a pin-type package and a bottom-surface-mount package. The originally filed claims were rejected as either anticipated or obvious. The independent claims were then amended to add the requirement of “circular attachment pads,” and the applicant argued that “circular attachment pads” were novel. As a result of the amendment, the ‘423 patent issued as amended.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In yet another multi-defendant case, a district court has severed defendants from a patent infringement suit brought by a plaintiff against many defendants. In this case, the plaintiff brought suit against eleven defendants for infringing the same four patents. The district court granted defendants’ motion to sever because the plaintiff did not allege that the defendants were engaged in the same transaction or occurrence.

The court began by noting a number of decisions that granted severance under Ninth Circuit precedent and it sharply distinguished cases from the Eastern District of Texas that denied motions to sever because those cases followed a different rule than what the Ninth Circuit employs. Based on Ninth Circuit law, the court found that the motion to sever should be granted because the defendants had not engaged in the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. The fact that the defendants were allegedly infringing the patents in a similar way was not sufficient. The court stated: “”Plaintiff has not alleged that the Defendants have engaged in the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences. Rather, Defendants are accused of infringing the patents in similar ways, but not as part of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences.
Continue reading