Articles Posted in District Courts

Published on:

by

As the case between Milo & Gabby, LLC and Amazon moved closer to trial, Amazon filed several motions in limine, including a motion to force the plaintiffs to remove statements from its websites, which Amazon contended were inaccurate and prejudicial. Amazon also contended that the statements on the website could taint potential jurors and contained impermissible argument regarding remedial measures.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

As the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) patent infringement case against Apple approached trial, Apple attempted to call a witness live that it had previously informed WARF’s counsel would be called by deposition.

Apple’s counsel had previously asked that Patrick McNamara be allowed to appear by deposition in order to accommodate his schedule and not cut into his vacation in order to be called adversely in WARF’s case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Defendant R/X Automation Solutions filed a motion in limine to exclude one of plaintiff’s experts. The district court concluded that the motion was an untimely Daubert motion because the district court had set a deadline for dispositive motions and Daubert motions.

The district court was not impressed with the excuse for the late filing. “Defendant’s excuse that it could not have known of the bases for the motion until after it took depositions of the experts is lame. Defendant had Dr. Derby’s report, for example, before the due date for Daubert motions. Everything that the ‘motion in limine’ complains of with respect to Dr. Derby is plain to see on the face of his report.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs filed motions in limine to exclude 15 prior art references that defendants intend to use to show the state of the art pertinent to the patents-in-suit. Defendants included the 15 references on a recent notice, but the references were not included on defendants’ third (and final) amended invalidity contentions.

As explained by the district court, “Defendants intone the wearying refrain that granting the motion would constitute ‘reversible error,’ because they are absolutely entitled to show the state of the art. Defendants are correct that the obviousness analysis is expansive and flexible, and that references like the ones at issue now might be relevant to show what was generally known in the art at the time of the invention. But defendants miss the point, which is not whether the 15 references are relevant. The issue is whether the 15 references were properly disclosed in this case.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiffs, Fieldturf USA and Tarkett Inc. (collectively, “Fieldturf”) filed a patent infringement action against Astroturf LLC (“Astroturf”). In defense, Astroturf intended to present expert testimony on anticipation showing that certain Fieldturf technical information predated the patent-in-suit.

Based on the technical information, Astroturf’s expert created replicas of the fields and he then used multiple techniques to measure the infill depth. Before trial, Fieldturf filed a motion in limine that sought to exclude the replicas, contending that Astroturf made most of the decisions regarding the replicas’ size and materials, and directly participated in the replicas’ creation. Fieldturf also argued that the replicas did not control for multiple factors — such as the weight and density of the carpet, whether the sand and rubber was laid in separate layers or as a mixture, the size of rubber particles, and humidity — that impact the infill depth.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The defendants filed a motion to stay discovery until the district court ruled upon its motion to dismiss pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. In their motion to stay, Defendants asserted that its motion to stay discovery should be granted because it is a dispositive motion to dismiss that is likely to be granted, which would render any discovery conducted unnecessary and wasteful.

Plaintiff argued in opposition to the motion to stay that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss is not likely to be granted and also that the parties previously agreed that no Rule 12 motion concerning the pleadings would delay the commencement or conducting of discovery. Plaintiff also argued that it has incurred significant expenses in the litigation and that a stay of discovery would be prejudicial and harmful.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In consolidated patent infringement actions between Arctic Cat and Polaris, Artic Cat filed four petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two patents asserted by Polaris. Three days after the IPRs were filed, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the consolidated cases given Arctic Cat’s pending IPR petitions.

On September 1, 2015, the district court denied the parties’ request to stay. In response to the district court’s order, the parties submitted a joint letter seeking reconsideration of the order denying a stay of the consolidated cases.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Isola USA Corp. (“Isola”) moved to compel Taiwan Union Technology Corp. (“TUC”) to provide updated sales data in response to document requests an interrogatories. In response to this discovery, TUC had previously provided sales data on allegedly infringing products that covered a period up to December 31, 2014. Isola moved to compel TUC to update that data to cover a period up to July 31, 2015.

In its motion, Isoled asserts that the information sought was relevant because it would be an update of information TUC has already produced. Isola also asserted that it would be prejudiced if the information was not produced, because it should be allowed to present the most complete picture of damages to the jury at trial. In addition, Isola claimed that TUC was required to supplement its sales data pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A) on the theory that TUC’s disclosures are now “incomplete” due to the passage of time.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Deep Sky Software, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant Southwest Airlines (“Southwest”) sought its fees and costs following the successful inter partes review of the patent-in-suit, which resulted in all of the asserted claims being invalidated. Among the fees and costs Southwest sought were those related to the filing and prosecution of its IPR petition. Undaunted by the absence of other district court rulings awarding such fees, the district court nonetheless awarded Southwest nearly $400,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, most of which was related to the IPR proceeding.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendants, Nang Kuang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Nang Kuang”) and CANDA NX-2, LLC (“CANDA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the patent infringement action filed by Plaintiffs, Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) and the Trustees of Princeton University (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

As explained by the district court, “Nang Kuang is a Taiwanese generic drug manufacturer seeking approval from the FDA to market generic versions of ALIMTA®. CANDA, a Texas limited liability company, entered into an agreement with Nang Kuang whereby Nang Kuang agreed to exclusively manufacture and supply the ANDA Product to CANDA, and CANDA agreed to assist Nang Kuang with the U.S. litigation arising from Nang Kuang’s submission of the ANDA, and find marketing partners to market, sell and distributed the ANDA Product if the ANDA application is approved by the FDA. As of this date, the FDA has not approved the ANDA, and neither Nang Kuang nor CANDA has commercially manufactured, used, sold or offered for sale in, or imported into, the United States any ANDA Product. On August 25, 2014, Nang Kuang and CANDA jointly provided a notice of certification to the required parties pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 314.95(a) (‘Notice Letter’), including Lilly’s Indianapolis-based General Counsel and its Indianapolis trial counsel. The submission of the Notice Letter triggered the forty-five day period in which Lilly had to file the instant Hatch-Waxman action to challenge the ANDA and seek an order that the effective date of any approval of Nang Kuang’s ANDA be not earlier than the expiration date of Plaintiffs’ patents.”
Continue reading