Articles Posted in District Courts

Published on:

by

In the matter pending in the Western District of Texas, Katrinecz, et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Motorola infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,284,872 entitled “Low power, low cost illuminated keyboards and keypads.” The ‘872 patent lists Plaintiffs Katrinecz and Byrd as the inventors. In April 1997, the plaintiffs conceived of a keyboard invention and during the summer of 1997 they developed prototypes. In October 1997, they engaged attorneys and filed their first patent application for the invention on August 26, 1998.

During this time, on August 11, 1998, Katrinecz and his spouse executed a Marital Settlement Agreement dissolving their nine-year marriage. The Florida State court rendered a Final Judgment Dissolving Marriage on September 17, 1998. Motorola contended that the invention of the ‘872 patent was developed during the marriage and thus should be considered personal property subject to equitable distribution upon dissolution of the marriage. Motorola further asserted that “when a marital settlement agreement fails to address personal property, that property is co-owned by both spouses by operation of law upon entry of final judgment dissolving the marriage.” Consequently, because the Agreement did not expressly address the disposition of the rights to the invention, Motorola argued that the rights became co-owned by the inventor and his ex-spouse upon entry of the final judgment on September 17, 1998. Because the ex-spouse co-owned the patent when it issued and because she was not a party to the action, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the matter pending in the Northern District of California, Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Apple moved to stay the litigation pending inter partes review of the patent-in-suit. On October 9, 2013, plaintiff Aylus Networks filed suit against Apple for infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE44,414. On September 29, 2014, Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review of the ‘414 patent. On September 30, 2014, Apple filed the instant stay motion.

The Court began by reciting the applicable law, particularly in cases such as this one where the motion to stay was sought before the PTAB instituted any proceedings against the patent-in-suit:

Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings, including the authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.” Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). However, a “court is under no obligation to delay its own proceedings” where parallel litigation is pending before the PTAB. See Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Cardiocom, LLC, C-14-1575 EMC, 2014 WL 3107447 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2014). This is especially true when the Patent Office has yet to decide whether to institute IPR proceedings. See, e.g., VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that the case for a stay is “stronger after post-grant review has been instituted”); Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. American Airlines, Inc., 13-CV-665, 2014 WL 3736514 at *1-2 (E.D. Tx. Jul. 29, 2014) (Bryson, J.) (noting that the “majority of courts . . . have denied stay requests when the PTAB has not yet acted on the petition for review”).

In determining whether to stay this litigation, the Court considers three factors: “(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party.” Robert Bosch, 2014 WL 3107447 at *3 (citation omitted).

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the district court issued a sua sponte order requiring plaintiff to show why its inducing infringement claims should not be dismissed as a matter of law. After addressing the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Limelight, the district court noted that no single party performed all of the steps of the method in the patent-in-suit.

As noted by the district court, “[e]ach of the method claims presented by the ‘835 and ‘740 patents specifies that some method steps are to be performed by the ‘assisted user,’ while other steps are to be performed ‘at the relay.’ Conceding that no single party actually performs every step of the claimed methods, plaintiffs seek to establish that defendants’ customers (the ‘assisted users’) direct and control defendants in performing those steps to be performed ‘at the relay’ such that the performance of all of the steps of the method can be attributed to the assisted users.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs filed the declaratory judgment complaint in this patent case after receiving a letter from defendants alleging that Plaintiffs’ products infringe two of defendants’ patents. Plaintiffs sough declaratory judgment that Defendants’ patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,830,014 (filed Aug. 5, 2003) (“the ‘014 Patent”) and 7,267,082 (filed Dec. 30, 2005) (“the ‘082 Patent”), were invalid and/or that Plaintiffs’ products do not infringe the patents. Defendants asserted counterclaims of infringement. The remaining issues for trial involved the scope and validity of the ‘082 Patent and whether Plaintiffs’ product design infringed the ‘082 Patent.

The individual defendant filed a motion to re-align the parties to allow himself to present his case first because he had the burden of proof on the “most important issue” remaining for trial. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on the grounds that they bore the burden of proof on the declaratory judgment claim of invalidity and because they initiated the lawsuit.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs Alpha One Transporter, Inc. and American Heavy Moving and Rigging, Inc. (collectively “Alpha One”) filed a complaint against Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Perkins Motor Transport, Inc. (“Perkins”). Perkins subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Alpha One’s complaint for lack of standing on one of the patents-in-suit (the ‘897 Patent) because a co-inventor of the patent had not assigned his rights to Alpha One.

In its opposition, Alpha One did not dispute that the co-inventor status but argued that the co-inventor’s (Mr. McGhie’s) prior assignment of rights in a 2002 provisional patent application (“2002 Assignment”) provided Alpha One ownership of the ‘897 Patent. Because the parties disputed these jurisdictional facts, the district court determined that Alpha One bore the burden of proof to show it had standing to sue on the ‘897 patent.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronic North America Corporation, et al., the Philips Defendants moved for leave to amend their answer to add a defense of inequitable conduct based on Masimo’s alleged inequitable conduct during the ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. Masimo opposed the amendment on the grounds that it was futile and unduly prejudicial. As summarized below, the Court sided with Philips and allowed the amendment and related discovery.

After setting forth the good cause standard for leave to amend after a deadline in the scheduling order, the Court recited the substantive elements of inequitable conduct required to plead this defense:

“(l) an individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application made an affirmative misrepresentation of a material fact, failed to disclose material information, or submitted false material information; and (2) the individual did so with a specific intent to deceive the PTO.” Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1327 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “[I]n pleading inequitable conduct in patent cases, Rule 9(b) requires identification of the specific who, what, when, where, and how of the material misrepresentation or omission committed before the PTO.” Id. at 1327. Generally, the materiality required to establish inequitable conduct is “but-for materiality.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As for the intent prong, Rule 9(b) states that “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of mind of a person may be averred generally.” The relevant “conditions of mind” for inequitable conduct include: “(l) knowledge of the withheld material information or of the falsity of the material misrepresentation, and (2) specific intent to deceive the PTO.” Exergen, 575 F.3d at 1327.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In CTP Innovations, LLC v. Solo Printing, Case No. 1:14-cv-21499-UU, the Court denied, without prejudice, Defendant’s motion to stay the litigation pending the inter partes review of the two patents-in-suit.

In its motion to stay, the Defendant argued the traditional factors considered by court favored a stay, including that the USPTO’s analysis will simplify the issues in litigation because third party petitions have challenged all claims of the asserted patents, that the case was in its earliest stages having just been filed a little over two months ago, and that there would be no prejudice to the plaintiff because, as a non-practicing entity, it does not compete in the marketplace with the Defendant and thus any infringement, if proven, could be adequately remedied by monetary damages.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Pipeline Technologies Inc. (“Pipeline”) filed a patent infringement action against Telog Instruments Inc. (“Telog”). Telog filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking summary judgment on the ground that the disputed claims of U.S. Patent 7,219,553 (‘553 patent) are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the defendants, Hangzhou Langhong Technology Co., Ltd. and Langhong Technology USA Inc., moved to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s experts on infringement and damages. The district court had previously issued a scheduling order setting March 26, 2014 as the deadline for the parties to designate their experts and to make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

As explained by the district court, Rule 26(a)(2) requires that the expert’s report must contain, inter alia, a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). The district court then found that “[t]he report prepared by Rogers provides virtually none of the information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff’s response to the motion asserts as an excuse for noncompliance lack of sufficient discovery before Rogers prepared his report for him to have the information he would need to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B). After a thorough review of the material provided by the parties, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff’s excuse for noncompliance with the scheduling order as to Rogers has merit. Plaintiff had ample time before Rogers prepared and submitted his report for the collection of whatever information it needed for Rogers to provide the information in his report required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 16, 2014, the district court entered Judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff Global Traffic Technologies, LLC (“GTT”) in the amount of $5,052,118, enhanced damages in the amount of $2,526,059, and prejudgment interest in the amount of $923,965, plus $1,384.14 for each day after October 31, 2013. Defendants Morgan and KME requested that the district court stay execution of judgment and waive the supersedeas bond requirement. Defendant STC requested that the district court stay execution of judgment with an authorized bond of $100,000, together with pending patent applications in the field of traffic signal preemption.

As the district court explained, “[a]n appellant may obtain a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal when an appellant posts a supersedeas bond, “in the full amount of the judgment plus interests, costs, and damages for delay.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 62(d); Corporate Comm’n of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Money Ctrs. of Am., Inc., No. 12-1015, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176796, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2013) (citing New Access Commc’ns LLC v. Qwest Corp., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1138 (D. Minn. 2005) (Tunheim, J.)). The Court maintains the discretion, however, to waive the bond requirement and stay enforcement of the judgment without a bond.”
Continue reading