Articles Posted in District Courts

Verify Smart Corp. (“Verify”) filed a patent infringement action against Bank of America, N.A. (“BoA”), alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,285,648 (“the ‘648 Patent”). As part of its complaint, Verify claimed to have all substantial rights through an exclusive license. BoA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), contending that Verify lacked standing.
Continue reading

Plaintiff West View Research (“West View”) filed five separate patent infringement complaints on the same date against various automobile manufacturers. Each action asserted a combination of patents, all from the same patent family, for a total of eleven asserted patents. The district ourt consolidated the five for purposes of discovery and claim construction.

As part of the Case Management Order, the district court ordered West View to identify no more than seven claims from each patent to assert against the Defendants. For each asserted claim, the district court ordered West View to provide preliminary infringement contentions.
Continue reading

The parties filed opposing motions against each side’s expert witness over a dispute between the parties as to what the word “use” means. In its Markman order, the district court had construed the term “Internet Protocol network” (“an Internet Protocol network,” “network utilizing at least one Internet Protocol,” and “a network utilizing at least one Internet Protocol”) to mean “an untrusted network using any protocol of the Internet Protocol Suite including at least one of IP, TCP/IP, UDP/IP, HTTP, and HTTP/IP. . . .”
Continue reading

Defendant Extended Disc North America, Inc. (“EDNA”) filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, and, alternatively, a motion to dismiss against plaintiff Target Training International, Ltd.’s (“TTI”). TTI had filed its complaint for patent infringement against EDNA on September 17, 2010, alleging that EDNA directly infringed at least Claim 1 of the patent-in-suit by performing the methods claimed in the patent and by using or selling services that use the methods claimed in the patent.

Extended DISC International, Ltd. (“EDI”) filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”). EDNA moved to stay the case pending the outcome of the reexamination. The court initially denied the motion to stay. On January 6, 2012, the PTO issued a final office action rejecting all of the claims in the patent-in-suit. The court subsequently issued an order staying the case until the PTO concluded reexamination and a certificate of reexamination was issued.
Continue reading

In this patent infringement action between Natural Chemistry LP and Orenda Technologies, Inc. (“Orenda”), Orenda’s counsel filed a notice of vacation designation, which the district court characterized as a notice of unavailability.

In considering the notice, the district court began by noting that “[t]he rules of this Court do not provide for filing a Notice of Unavailability as a method to avoid abiding by deadlines and schedules established by the Court or to extend the time for responding to motions.”
Continue reading

America’s Collectibles Network (“ACN”) filed a patent infringement action in which it claimed to own U.S. Patent No. 8,370,211 (the “211 Patent”). It brought this action against the Genuine Gemstone Company (“Genuine Gemstone”). Genuine Gemstone filed a motion to dismiss contending that it is the rightful owner of the 211 Patent and that ACN lacks standing to assert infringement.

The district court explained the background facts as follows: “On June 18, 2010, The Colourful Company Group acquired Gems TV (UK) Ltd–the then owner of the 211 Patent–through a share purchase agreement. After the transaction was completed, Gems TV (UK)’s former director, Anthony Hillyer, signed a document purportedly assigning Gems TV (UK)’s interest in the patent to a US affiliate that was not part [of] the sale. ACN traces its chain of title back to that assignment. If the assignment was valid, as ACN contends, then ACN is the rightful owner of the 211 Patent, and this suit may proceed. On the other hand, if the assignment was invalid as the defendant claims, then ACN is not the rightful owner of the 211 Patent, and it lacks standing to assert its infringement claim.”
Continue reading

After the district court adopted a specialized scheduling order that was based on local patent rules in other districts, the plaintiffs served detailed infringement contentions and the defendant served detailed invalidity contentions early in the case. The parties could only amend the contentions for “good cause.” As the case progressed toward trial, the parties moved to strike various portions of the opposing party’s expert reports arguing that certain references and/or theories were not properly disclosed in the contentions.
Continue reading

The defendants in this patent infringement action filed several motions for leave to amend their answers to include various affirmative defenses, including: (1) the affirmative defense of patent misuse; (2) the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct; (3) a counterclaim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement; and (4) a counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity. Plaintiff REC Software (“REC”) opposed the motions for leave to amend and asserted that the proposed amendments would be futile and the proposed counterclaims and affirmative defenses were duplicative.

REC argued that there was no basis for a defense or counterclaim of patent misuse because an affirmative defense or counterclaim of patent misuse may not be based on infringement or damages positions asserted in litigation. As the district court explained: patent misuse usually applies where a patentee seeks to impermissibly extend the monopoly grant of a patent. U.S. Philips Corp. v. Int‟l Trade Comm‟n, 424 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal Circuit has held that certain activities constitute per se patent misuse, such as when a patentee attempts to extend the term of the patent by contractually requiring payment of post-expiration royalties. Virginia Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1997). But other activities have been excluded from the doctrine of patent misuse. For example, Congress has declared that a patent owner may seek “to enforce his patent rights against infringement or contributory infringement” without being guilty of patent misuse or illegal extension of the patent right. 35 U.S.C. §271(d)(3).
Continue reading

Rec Software USA, Inc. (“Rec”) filed a patent infringement action against HTC America, Inc. (“HTC”). HTC requested leave to file a motion for summary judgment based on 35 U.S.C. §101. The request for leave to file the summary judgment motion occurred prior to claim construction proceedings.

HTC argued that the summary judgment motion could potentially dispose of the entire case in support of its request for leave to file an early motion for summary judgment. Rec opposed HTC’s request by arguing that claim construction was necessary to understand the nature of the asserted claims.
Continue reading

Plaintiff Labyrinth Optical Technologies LLC (“Labyrinth”) filed a patent infringement action against Defendant Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (“Lucent”), alleging that Lucent infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,103,173 (the “‘173 Patent”). On the eve of trial, Lucent filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing, arguing that Labyrinth could not show that it holds the rights to the ‘173 Patent.

The district court review the following facts to analyze the motion: “In November 2011, Teradvance Communications, LLC (“Teradvance”) granted to Acacia Research Group LLC (“Acacia”) an exclusive licence to certain patents and patent applications listed in an attached exhibit (“Exclusive License”). The list included foreign and domestic patents and pending patent applications, including U.S. Patent Application No. 12/554,241, which later issued as the ‘173 Patent. In April 2012, Acacia entered into an Assignment and Assumption Agreement (“Assignment”) with Labyrinth, one of Acacia’s affiliates. By its express terms, the Assignment is governed by Texas law. The Assignment notes that the Exclusive License covered “the Patents listed in the Exhibit attached hereto (the ‘Patents’),” but the Assignment does not specify whether the Exclusive License covered anything else. The Assignment states that it conveyed rights to the “Patents.” But unlike the Exclusive License, which actually has an exhibit identifying the patents subject to the agreement, the Assignment does not.”
Continue reading