Articles Posted in C.D. California

Published on:

by

The following four decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of March 18 through March 29, 2013.

Thumbnail image for CACD Decisions dated 3-18-13 through 3-29-13.JPGThe authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com/a>.

Published on:

by

The following eighteen decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of March 1 through March 15, 2013.

CACD Decisions5.JPGThe authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com/a>.

Published on:

by

The following nine decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of February 16 through February 28, 2013.

untitled.JPG

The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com/a>.

Published on:

by

The following fourteen decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of February 1 through February 15, 2013.

Summary of CACD Decisions 2-1 to 2-15.JPG
The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com

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

In Arrival Star S.A.., et al. -v- Meitek Inc., et al., Defendant Meitek Inc. (“Meitek”) moved for Rule 11 sanctions against the Plaintiff Arrival Star S.A. (“Arrival Star”) based on Meitek’s contentions that “ArrivalStar’s counsel (1) failed to prepare any claim construction before filing suit, (2) made a “tactical decision” to sue Meitek instead of its Chinese parent company due to the difficulties of retaining service and recovering judgment against the latter, and (3) improperly relied on the views of a patent practitioner to opine on the issue of infringement.” Meitek sought at least three times its attorneys’ fees of $110,000 and preferably 5 to 10 times this amount, or $550,000 to $1,100,000 in sanctions.

The Court recited the standard under Rule 11 that sanctions may be imposed “when a filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose. The standard governing both the ‘improper purpose’ and ‘frivolous’ inquiries is objective.” (internal citations omitted). The Court further stated that Local Rule 11-9 further provides that the presentation to the Court of frivolous motions subjects the offender at the discretion of the Court to sanctions.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The following ten decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of January 14 through January 31, 2013.

untitled1.JPG

The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com.

Published on:

by

The following six decisions in patent cases pending in the Central District of California

were reported for the period of January 1 through January 11, 2013.

DATE

CASE AND HOLDING

JUDGE

MOTION TYPE

1/2/2013

The Tawnsaura Group, LLC v. Maximum Human Performance, LLC, 2-12-cv-07189

Otero

Dismiss

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint because the asserted patents for health improvement methods contained ineligible subject matter.

Jumbo Bright Trading Limited, et. al. v. The Gap, Inc., 2-12-cv-08932

Pregerson

Preliminary Injunction

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to preclude defendant from selling its accused shoes because plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of irreparable harm.

1/4/2013

Marketlinx Inc. v. Industry Access Incorporated, et al. , 2-12-cv-03496

Olquin

Compel – Source Code

The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of defendant’s source code.

1/8/2013

Medsquire LLC v. Compulink Business Systems Inc., 2-11-cv-10122

Fitzgerald

Compel – Invalidity Contentions

The court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to provide further invalidity contentions.

TriPharma, LLC v. First Fruits Business Ministry LLC, et. al., 8-12-cv-00404

Selna

Contempt – Preliminary Injunction

The court denied plaintiff’s unopposed motion to find defendants in contempt of a preliminary injunction because plaintiff failed to establish a knowing violation of the injunction.

1/10/2013

InTouch Technologies Inc. v. VGo Communications Inc., 2-11-cv-09185

Anderson

Motion for Judgment – Declaration that the patents-in-suit were invalid.

The court sustained plaintiff’s objection to defendant’s motion for judgment which included a declaration that the patents-in-suit were invalid as to all claims where the jury found invalidity as to only one claim per patent.

The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com.

Published on:

by

CSR Technology, Inc. (“CSR”) filed a patent infringement action against Bandspeed, Inc. (“Bandspeed”) for infringement of its signal processing patents. After the district court issued its claim construction ruling, Bandspeed moved for summary judgment.

As the district court explained, “[t]he ‘771 and ‘886 patents relate to signal detection and acquisition respectively. Signal detection involves checking an incoming signal for its fit with reference signals, so as to detect the signal’s identity. Signal acquisition involves sampling an incoming signal so as to acquire it.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Earlier this summer, the district court enjoined Samsung from “making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States, Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer, and any product that is no more than colorably different from this specified product and embodies any design contained in U.S. Design Patent No. D504,889.” After the injunction issued, Samsung filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit. The appeal remained pending as the case proceeded to trial.

After the trial, the jury found that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not infringe Apple’s design patent. The district court subsequently entered a judgment in favor of Apple on the jury verdict. Based on the judgment, Samsung filed a motion for the district court to dissolve the injunction and to retain the $2.6 million bond posted for the injunction. The district court denied the motion due to the pending appeal but issued an indicative ruling pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1 that Samsung’s motion raised a substantial issue. The Federal Circuit subsequently issued a limited remand order to permit the district court to rule on the motion to dissolve.
Continue reading