Articles Posted in C.D. California

Published on:

by

Limestone filed a patent infringement action against Apple, alleging direct and willful infringement of four patents. For each of the four claims of patent infringement against Apple, Limestone alleged, “[u]pon information and belief, Apple will continue its infringement notwithstanding its actual knowledge of the [four patents] and while lacking an objectively reasonable good faith basis to believe that its activities do not infringe any valid claim of the [four patents].” As such, Apple’s future “acts of infringement will constitute continuing willful infringement of the [four patents].”

Apple filed a motion to dismiss Limestone’s four willful infringement claims. Apple asserted that Limestone did not allege pre-litigation knowledge of the patents at issue nor did it move for a preliminary injunction. Apple argued that the willful infringement claims were deficient for these reasons.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs filed an action defendants, Bouncing Angels, Inc. for, among other things, patent and copyright infringement. Plaintiffs successfully moved the district court to allow them to amend the complaint to add the owner of defendant Bouncing Angels, Inc., as a defendant based on financial evidence they discovered that could support an argument in favor of piercing the corporate veil. Discovery was extended “for the limited purpose of allowing discovery and dispositive motions only on issues relating to piercing the corporate veil.” The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery on that issue.

As explained by the court, “[t]he discovery requests at issue in the Motion are all directed at defendant Bouncing Angels, and consist of document requests, requests for admissions, and an interrogatory. The discovery seeks Bouncing Angels’ tax returns and annual statements for a number of years, loan and security documents relating to a line of credit, information as to this defendant’s working capital, and whether Bouncing Angels ever conducted an independent audit.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Juno Manufacturing, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Juno”) filed a patent infringement complaint against Defendant Nora Lighting, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Nora”). The complaint alleged that Defendant infringed Plaintiff’s patent, No. 5,505,419 (the “‘419 Patent”), entitled Bar Hanger for a Recessed Light Fixture Assembly. Nora filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a judgment that Juno was barred from recovering damages on the ground that Juno failed to properly label its products.

In its motion, Nora asserted that Juno failed to provide proper notice of the ‘419 Patent. As explained by the district court, the requisite notice can be actual or constructive.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the court struck plaintiff’s damage expert’s report for failing to tie damages to the limited feature of the patented invention, the court permitted the plaintiff to submit a supplemental expert report. Once the supplemental expert report was served, AT&T again moved to exclude the plaintiff’s damage expert from the upcoming trial.

AT&T contended that the opinions in the Supplemental Report, organized around four alternative damages calculations presented in two sets of two, did not correct the defects in the original report because plaintiff’s expert (Parr) did not tie “his damages calculations to the value of the patented invention.” AT&T further argued that the calculations simply attempt to exclude certain non-infringing revenue from the royalty base and do not attempt to address apportionment at all, which runs afoul of the entire market value rule.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the plaintiff Cordelia Lighting, Inc. (“Cordelia”) obtained a preliminary injunction against Zhejiang Yankon Grp. (“Yankon”), Cordelia sought to add certain retailers to the injunction. Cordelia owns U.S. Patent No. 8,474,204 (“the ‘204 Patent”), which is entitled “Recessed LED Lighting Fixture” and describes a fixture designed to hold an LED light bulb. Cordelia alleged that Yankon infringed the ‘204 Patent by making and selling a product called the “Utilitec Pro LED Recessed Retrofit Downlight” Yankon sells these products to Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s”).

In its effort to add Lowe’s to the injunction, Cordelia argued that Cordelia first argued that Lowe’s should be enjoined because it is in “active concert or participation” with Yankon. The district court explained that “[s]ignificant to the analysis here, ‘[a]ctions that aid and abet in violating the injunction must occur after the injunction is imposed for the purposes of Rule 65(d)(2)(C).’ Blockowicz v. Williams, 630 F.3d 563, 568 (7th Cir. 2010). It is undisputed that Yankon manufactures the Accused Products in China and then sells them to Lowe’s, freight on board, in China. (See Declaration of Stephen Lobbin, Doc. No. 107-1, Ex. E (Deposition of Kevin Zhao at 36:15¬37:2).) In other words, once Yankon sells a unit of product to Lowe’s, Yankon receives payment and no longer has any involvement with the end sales of the products to consumers. The Injunction Order prevents Yankon from making, selling, or importing the Accused Products. (Injunction Order at 14.) To be properly subject to the Injunction Order, Lowe’s would have to aid or abet, or be a privy to, Yankon taking such actions. But, Lowe’s fulfills neither requirement; it is hoping to sell off its own accumulated inventory of the Accused Products. Lowe’s has already purchased this inventory, and is not continuing to purchase Accused Products from Yankon (which would clearly constitute a violation of the Injunction Order).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Apple filed a motion to compel discovery from Farstone Technology, Inc. (“Farstone”) by way of a Joint Stipulation as required by the court’s local rules. After the court reviewed the joint stipulation, it found that there were significant problems and that too many disputes remained for the court to resolve.

As a result, the court concluded that the meet and confer process had failed that the parties had not complied with Local Rule 37-1. “After reading the Joint Stipulation, the Court cannot but conclude that the meet and confer process has failed. There are far too many disputed issues. Both sides are not being as reasonable and flexible as they should be and as the Local Rules contemplate. Specifically, Local Rule 37-1 requires counsel to ‘confer in a good faith effort to eliminate the necessity for hearing the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible.’ (Emphasis added.)”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. (“Good) and Defendant MobileIron, Inc. (“MobileIron”). Two months before the trial, MobileIron moved to dismiss the case based invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The court, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, found the claims in the patents may indeed be abstract. “In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 bars any patent claim directed to an abstract idea unless the claim includes “additional features” that transform the idea into a patent eligible invention. At first glance, Alice would seem to pose serious problems for each of the claims of two patents Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. assert against Defendant MobileIron, Inc. United States Patent No. 7.907,386 appears directed to little more than the notion of enforcing rules. United States Patent No. 7,702,322 appears no less abstract in claiming a way of ensuring the compatibility of two items used together. In the absence of a transformation of these ideas, Good would appear to be the owner of two patents worth little more than the paper they are printed on.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of a standard protective order after the defendant would not agree to sign a stipulated protective order. As explained by the district court, the plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging that they infringed on several patents.

After the lawsuit was filed, plaintiffs’ counsel requested that defendants’ counsel sign off on a stipulated protective order to protect certain confidential/proprietary materials that the parties were going to exchange in discovery. The district court explained that “[t]his is standard operating procedure in patent cases in federal court and the parties and the Court routinely sign off on them in these cases.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff, MyMedicalRecords (“MMR”), owns U.S. Patent No. 8,498,883 (the ‘883 Patent) entitled “Method for Providing a User with a Service for Accessing and Collecting Prescriptions.” MMR asserted claims 1-3 of the ‘883 Patent against Quest Diagnostics, Inc., WebMD Health Corp., WebMD Health Services Group Inc., and Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).

As explained by the district court, the asserted claims are method claims directed to providing users with a secure and private way to collect, access, and manage drug prescriptions online. Independent claim 1 recites a “means for scheduling one or more prescription refills concerning a drug prescription” limitation. Claims 2 and 3 depend on claim 1 and therefore incorporate this “means for scheduling” limitation by reference.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Phoenix Modular Elevator, Inc. (“Phoenix”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against T.L. Shield & Associates, Inc. (“Shield”) and Modular Elevator Manufacturing, Inc. (“MEM”). The patent at issue, United States Patent No. 6,079,520 (the “520 patent”), is entitled “Method of Retro-Fitting Elevators to Existing Buildings.” As explained by the district court, the ‘520 patent describes a method of manufacturing an elevator and installing it onto an existing, multistory building.

During the case, Phoenix learned that a smaller than expected number of potentially infringing elevators were not actually infringing. As a result, Phoenix signed a covenant not to sue and explained that it was no longer economical to litigate the case. Phoenix then filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Continue reading