Articles Posted in District Courts

In this patent infringement action, Potter Voice submitted an expert declaration of David Klausner for the purpose of claim construction. Microsoft moved to exclude the declaration under Fed.R.Evid. 702.

The district court explained the background of the patent as follows: In 1998, United States patent number 5,729,659 (the ‘659 patent) was issued to Jerry L. Potter. Plaintiff, Potter voice Technologies LLC, now owns the ‘659 patent. The ‘659 patent describes a method and apparatus for controlling a digital computer using oral input. The patent infringement claims alleged in Potter’s complaint are based on four distinct software products: (1) BlackBerry Voice Commands; (2) Google Voice Search; (3) Google Voice Actions; and (4) Windows Speech Commands. Potter alleges that the defendants infringe the ‘659 patent when these software products are used on mobile phones.
Continue reading

Sonic Industry (“Sonic”) filed a patent infringement action against iRobot Corporation (“iRobot”). iRobot filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the patent infringement complaint. The district court issued a memorandum order sua sponte because of some “problematic aspects of that responsive pleading.”

The district court noted that iRobot had regularly “coupled its invocation of the disclaimer made available under appropriate circumstances by Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5) with the language ‘and, therefore, denies those allegations.'” The district court found that these answers were problematic. “But it is of course oxymoronic for a party to assert (presumably in good faith) that it lacks even enough information to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, then proceed to deny it. Because such a denial is at odds with the pleader’s obligations under Rule 11(b), the quoted language is stricken from each of those paragraphs of the Answer.”
Continue reading

After trial and the denial of post-trial motions, AT&T Operations, Inc. (“AT&T”) filed motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). AT&T argued that the e-mail notice of electronic filings (NEF’s) that defense counsel received did not provide them with “notice” that Defendants’ substantive post-trial motions had been resolved. To make this argument, AT&T noted that the e-mail notifications defense counsel received only contained language regarding the district court’s grant of their motions for leave to file sealed documents, but failed to mention the denial of their substantive post-trial motions, which was provided in the same orders. Nonetheless, the district court noted that AT&T did, however, receive e-mail notifications that the Court had entered an order on Plaintiff’s bill of costs and had denied Defendants’ motion for new trial and JMOL on invalidity which were not sealed pleadings.

AT&T also argued that the docket entries for the orders at issue were modified two days later to reflect the denial of the substantive post-trial motions, but no new electronic notices were sent by the district court’s electronic case filing (ECF) system to reflect these amended docket entries. Accordingly, AT&T contended that based on the NEFs they received, counsel believed the motions for JMOL and new trial on damages and non-infringement had not been disposed of and remained pending before the Court. As a result, AT&T claimed that it “did not receive sufficient notice of the substance of the orders entered justifies reopening the time to file an appeal.”
Continue reading

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd.(“Wonderland”) filed a patent infringement action against Thorley Industries, LLC, d/b/a 4MOM (“Thorley”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,047,609 (the “‘609 Patent”) by the accused mamaRoo device. Pursuant to the Court’s Initial Patent Scheduling Order, Wonderland served its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions (“Infringement Contentions”) on Thorley on May 10, 2012, ,and Thorley served its Non-Infringement and Invalidity Contentions on Wonderland on May 24, 2012
The Court held a Markman Hearing on September 27, 2012. On January 11, 2013, after receiving the Revised (and corrected) Claim Construction Chart, the transcript of the Markman Hearing, and the Pre-Hearing and Post-Hearing Briefs, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Claim Construction Order.

After the order was issued, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment and exchanged expert reports for a trial set to begin in late January 2014. On December 26, 2013, without seeking leave of the district court, Wonderland served on Thorley Amended Infringement Contentions, and a Supplemental Expert Report directed at whether the gearing and linkage within the accused mamaRoo device constitute part of the alleged second motion mechanism, a necessary limitation of the patent at issue. Thorley filed a Motion to Exclude Wonderland’s Amended Infringement Contentions and Supplemental Expert Report.
Continue reading

In this patent infringement case brought by Carnegie Mellon University (“CMU”), against Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively “Marvell”), CMU alleged that Marvell has infringed two of its patents. After a four-week jury trial, the jury rendered its verdict in favor of CMU on infringement, validity, and willfulness, and awarded damages in the amount of $1,169,140,271.00.

Among many post-trial motions, Marvell file a motion for judgment in its favor on the equitable defense of laches. The district court noted that “[t]he first issue in dispute between the parties is whether Marvell has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that CMU had actual or constructive knowledge of Marvell’s infringement of the patents prior to March 6, 2003, which would raise a presumption in favor of Marvell. (Docket Nos. 804, 823). Marvell points to various events which occurred in 1998, 2001 and 2002 in support of its efforts to invoke the presumption. (Docket No. 804).”
Continue reading

TransUnion Intelligence LLC (“TransUnion”) filed a patent infringement action against SearchAmerica. After expert reports were served, SearchAmerica moved to exclude all references to the doctrine of equivalents and sought confirmation from TransUnion that they will not attempt to rely on a doctrine of equivalents theory for the remainder of the case.

In support of its motion, SearchAmerica argued that TransUnion should be prohibited from relying on the doctrine of equivalents infringement theory because the Scheduling Order required TransUnion to specify the details of such a theory in its claims charts.
Continue reading

Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. (“Unisone”) filed a patent infringement action against Tracelink, Inc. (“Tracelink”). Tracelink filed a motion to dismiss the claims for indirect (induced and contributory) infringement because Unisone had alleged no facts demonstrating Tracelink “had the intent to cause infringement . . . or that [Defendant] willfully infringed the patent.” Tracelink further asserted that Unisone “does not even allege that [Defendant] had knowledge of the ‘538 patent.” In addition, Tracelink argued that Unisone’s contributory infringement claim failed because Plaintiff had not alleged the necessary facts detailing how the accused product is made or adapted for use in an infringement of the patent-in-suit.

The district court began its analysis of the inducing claim by quoting the relevant statutory language and the standard set out by the Federal Circuit. “Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). To state a claim for induced infringement, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the alleged infringer (1) knew of the patent, (2) knowingly induced the infringing acts, and (3) possessed a specific intent to encourage another’s infringement of the patent. DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 2013 WL 444642, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013).
Continue reading

Taser International, Inc. (“Taser’) proceeded to trial on its patent infringement action against Karbon Arms, LLC (“Karbon Arms”). After expert reports and with the trial approaching, Taser filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony Val DiEuliis, one of Karbon Arms’ experts, regarding electrophysiology.

As explained by Taser, Dr. DiEuliis offered opinions on certain limitations of the patent-in-suit (United States Patent 7,800,885), including: “compliance signals of the group differ in intensity of pain compliance,” “compliance signals of the group differ in intensity of skeletal muscle contraction,” and “effective duration.”
Continue reading

Otto Bock HealthCare LP (“Otto Bock”) filed a patent infringement against Defendants Össur hf and Össur Americas, Inc. (together, “Össur”). Otto Bock alleged that a number of Össur’s infringed four claims of United States Patent No. 6,726,726 (the ” ‘726 Patent”). Otto Bock moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin Össur from infringing the ‘726 Patent, and the Court denied Otto Bock’s, holding that Otto Bock was unlikely to prove that the accused combination of products satisfied the ‘726 Patent’s “means for sealing” and “means for maintaining a vacuum” limitations.

After the preliminary injunction was denied, Össur petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “Patent Office”) to institute an inter partes review of 19 claims of the ‘726 Patent. Össur’s petition asserted that certain claims of the ‘726 Patent are invalid because they would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Össur’s petition did not seek review of two of the four independent claims at issue in the case. Össur’s moved to stay the district court case pending the inter partes review. At time of the motion to stay, the Patent Office had not yet decided whether to institute an inter partes review.
Continue reading

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. (“Kimberly-Clark) filed a patent infringement action against First Quality Baby Products, LLC (“First Quality”) over a variety of patents relating to disposable absorbent products, such as diapers and incontinence products, including U.S. Patent No. 5,147,343 (the “Kellenberger Patent”), which relates to an absorbent composite or core for use in disposable absorbent products. As explained by the district court, “[t]he absorbent core consists of a matrix of fibers with superabsorbant polymer (“SAP”) dispersed between the pores of the matrix. An SAP is a chemical compound capable of absorbing ten or more times its own weight in fluid-a useful property for products designed to absorb and retain fluids.”

As one of its defenses, First Quality argued that the Kellenberger Patent was invalid for obviousness. Defendants had previously moved for summary judgment on the of obviousness and had argued in support of that motion that the only feature distinguishing the Kellenberger Patent from the prior art was its use of a new SAP in the absorbent core to replace an older, less effective SAP. “In short, Defendants argued that Plaintiff simply took a new SAP (invented by a third party) and included it in a preexisting diaper design, and that it was obvious to do so. By memorandum issued July 8, 2013, the court denied Defendants’ motion after finding genuine disputes of material fact as to whether it would have been obvious to substitute the new SAP.”
Continue reading