Articles Posted in C.D. California

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

Published on:

by

The plaintiff, Freed Designs, Inc. (“Freed Designs”), filed a patent infringement action defendant Sig Sauer. Robert Freed is the sole inventor of the ‘764 Patent, titled “Grip Extender For Hand Gun.” Freed is also the sole owner and President of Plaintiff Freed Designs. Plaintiff alleged that Sig Sauer makes, sells, and offers to sell magazine extenders that infringe the ‘764 Patent. Sig Sauer answered the complaint and raised an affirmative defense of lack of standing. Sig Sauer then moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

After the action was filed, Freed executed an “Assignment of the Invention and Patent Application” transferring to Free Designs his “entire right, title, and interest in and to” the ‘764 Patent. A few months later, Freed executed another assignment titled “Assignment of Rights, Title and Interest in Invention.” This second assignment was styled as a nunc pro tunc assignment, purporting to have an effective date of August 16, 2005 (the issue date of the ‘764 Patent).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs’ filed a motion for a standard protective order to prevent the defendant from sharing confidential information. The district court denied the motion because the motion was not in the form of a joint stipulated as required by the local rules.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Kaneka Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed a patent infringement against SKC Kolon PI, Inc. (“SKPI” or “Defendant”) and SKC, Inc. (“SKC America”). After the district court issued a scheduling order setting, among other things, a final day to amend pleadings, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend its first amended complaint on the final day and the district court granted leave to amend, permitting the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. The parties subsequently filed cross motions for summary judgment.

While the summary judgment motions were pending, Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to amend the operative complaint. Although Plaintiff’s first amended complaint stated claims of direct infringement against Defendant SKPI, the second amended complaint omitted those claims. In its motion for leave, Plaintiff contended it inadvertently deleted those claims and moved for leave to amend to reinsert them.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Juno Lighting, LLC (“Juno”) filed a complaint against Nora Lighting, Inc. (“Nora”) on February 11, 2013. The complaint alleged that Nora infringed Juno’s patent, No. 5,505,419 (“‘419 Patent”), entitled Bar Hanger for a Recessed Light Fixture Assembly. Nora filed a counterclaim on May 28, 2013.

After the case was stayed pending a reexamination of the patent by the Patent Office and a summary judgment motion for literal infringement was granted in favor of Juno, Nora filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc. (“MAG”) and B/E Aerospace, Inc. (“B/E”), MAG filed an ex parte motion as a result of conduct during a deposition. The court began its analysis of the motion by reminding the parties that “[a] deposition is a judicial proceeding that should be conducted with the solemnity and decorum befitting its importance. Lawyers participating in depositions should comport themselves in a professional and dignified manner.”

The court went on to state that “[w]hen lawyers behave otherwise, it reflects poorly on the entire judicial process. The purpose of a deposition is for a witness to provide testimony under oath. The testimony may or may not be admissible at trial; nonetheless, the opposing party is entitled to ascertain the witness’s knowledge, as imperfect and imprecise as that knowledge may be.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation (“Plaintiff”) alleged that Defendants Superstar International, Inc. and Sai Liu (“Defendants”) produce, advertise, and sell products that infringe Plaintiff’s design patents for UGG boots. The district court previously ruled that default judgment was appropriate, considering both the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) and the factors laid out in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In the previous order, the district court left open what relief Plaintiff could recover.

The district court then addressed whether the Plaintiff should be entitled to treble damages. As explained by the district court, “[u]nder 35 U.S.C. § 284 (“Section 284”), when a Court finds that a patent has been infringed, ‘the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.’ One way damages may be measured under Section 284 is by the patentee’s lost profits. Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The burden of proving damages is on the patentee. Id.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, FedEx moved for reconsideration after the district court had denied its motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff’s claim for inducing patent infringement. FedEx moved for reconsideration based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014).

The district court first analyzed whether the motion to reconsider was procedurally proper. “Under Local Rule 7-18, a motion for reconsideration may be made on the following grounds only:

(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Defendant Lighthouse Photonics Corporation’s (“Lighthouse”) moved to reconsider the Court’s Claim Construction Order. Lighthouse argued three reasons for reconsideration: “first, Newport withheld discovery regarding its relevant prior art patents; second, a recent Supreme Court decision constitutes an intervening change in the law; and third, the Court adopted a construction that had not been advanced by either party until the reply briefing.”

The district court, turning to the first basis for the motion to reconsider, stated: “There has been no shortage of sniping and finger-pointing in this case, and the briefing on this Motion is no exception. The parties vigorously dispute whether Newport withheld discovery regarding its prior art patents: No. 4,756,003 (“‘003 Patent”) and No. 5,410,559 (“‘559 Patent”). The Court finds no need to wade into the quagmire over who withheld what, because it exercises its “inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke” interlocutory decisions. See Martin, 226 F.3d at 1048-49. Specifically, the Court finds that the presentation of two related patents, which were allegedly withheld by Newport, constitutes good cause to reconsider the May 7, 2014 claim construction order.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. (“Echostar”) moved to compel the production of settlement agreements from the plaintiff. Several issues arose on the motion, including whether the Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction to grant the motion even though the discovery cutoff date had passed, whether a party has an obligation to supplement its prior production with documents that were not created until after the discovery cutoff, and whether the settlement agreements were responsive to the prior document requests.

Turning to the first issue, the court found that it had jurisdiction because of an extension due to a mediation date. “Ordinarily, any motion concerning discovery must be filed sufficiently in advances of the discovery cutoff to allow any production to be completed prior to the cutoff date. Here, however, the parties had obtained an extension of the mediation date from the District Judge in order to allow the instant motion to be decided before the mediation. The Court concludes that, given the foregoing, it has jurisdiction to entertain the instant motion.”
Continue reading