Articles Posted in District Courts

Published on:

by

Rembrandt Social Media, LP (“Rembrandt”) filed a patent infringement action against Facebook alleging that Facebook infringed two of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,415,316 (“the ‘316 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,289,362 (“the ‘362 patent”).In 2009, Facebook introduced two new features to its website called BigPipe and Audience Symbol. Rembrandt’s expert admitted that the alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit is because of to the introduction of these two features in 2009. Rembrandt’s expert also admitted that Facebook does not infringe without BigPipe and Audience Symbol features.

As explained by the district court, “BigPipe, introduced in Fall 2009, is a web page acceleration and optimization computer program developed by Facebook to increase the speed at which certain web pages are delivered from Facebook’s servers to the user’s web browser. BigPipe takes a web page and divides it into portions known as “pagelets” using a certain piece of computer code12 to specify each pagelet.” In addition, “Audience Symbol, introduced in June 2009, is a small icon displayed next to stories on various webpages on Facebook’s website. The symbol signifies the third-party users, or “audience,” allowed to view a particular story. Rembrandt alleges that display of Audience Symbol violates both the ‘316 and ‘362 patents.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Defendant QxQ Inc. (“QxQ”), which is a California company, moved to transfer a patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the Northern District of California. QxQ asserted that the connections between the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the case were so limited that litigating the action in Wisconsin would be less convenient than litigating in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Circuit Check Inc. (“Circuit Check”), which is a Minnesota company, opposed the motion, in part, because QxQ delayed filing the motion to transfer.

QxQ moved to transfer based on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which, as explained by the district court, authorizes changes of venue “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” As noted by the district court, “[w]ith respect to the convenience evaluation, courts generally consider the availability of and access to witnesses, and each party’s access to and distance from resources in each forum. Other related factors include the location of material events and the relative ease of access to sources of proof.” Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Intern., Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). In assessing the interest of justice, “courts look to factors including docket congestion and likely speed to trial in the transferor and potential transferee forums, each court’s relative familiarity with the relevant law, the respective desirability of resolving controversies in each locale, and the relationship of each community to the controversy.” Id. (citations omitted).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (“ADP”) filed a declaratory judgment action against Wellogix, Inc., and Wellogix Technology Licensing LLC (“Wellogix”) for a determination that ADP does not infringe a Wellogix method patent on comparing data from purchase orders, field data, and invoices. After the action was filed, ADP moved for summary judgment on the ground that not all of the allegedly infringing steps were performed in the United States.

The district court began its analysis by stating that “[a] machine patent may be infringed if the protected technology is used, sold, or offered for sale ‘within the United States.’ Unlike a machine patent, a foreign method cannot be patented if its sold or offered for sale in the United States. All steps of the method must be done domestically.’
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the patent infringement action between Cobra International, Inc. (“Cobra”) and BCNY International, Inc. (“BCNY”), BCNY filed a motion to compel several documents, including a litigation funding agreement. Cobra opposed the motion asserting that the person funding the litigation was not making decisions regarding the lawsuit and was not interfering with the prosecution of the litigation. BCNY asserted that it was entitled to the document to determine if the patent had transferred.

As explained by the district court, “[i]n response to request for production number 32, which pertains to the litigation funding agreement, Mr. Eavzan stated in his declaration that ‘Cobra continues to own the ‘858 patent. The person or entity funding Cobra’s prosecution of the lawsuit against [BCNY] is not making the decisions for Cobra regarding the above-styled lawsuit, is not interfering with the independence and professional judgment of Cobra’s counsel relating to the above-styled lawsuit, and is not receiving confidential communications between Cobra and its counsel relating to the above-styled lawsuit.'”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Porto Technology Co., LTD (“Porto”) filed a patent infringement action against Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”). During the litigation, Verizon moved to compel communications between two of the plaintiffs, who are brothers, and counsel. As explained by the district court, the court began by looking at “communications between Ji-Soo Lee, Heung-Soo Lee (“Lee Brothers”) and counsel. Obviously, any communications between Plaintiff Ji-Soo Lee and his counsel pertaining to this or directly related infringement litigation is covered by attorney-client privilege. Communications between Heung-Soo Lee and his counsel do not appear to be similarly cloaked. Any privilege that existed was waived by Heung-Soo Lee by voluntarily disclosing communications concerning this — and related litigation — with both the Court and the Defendant, Verizon. Over 100 unsolicited documents pertaining to the ‘518 and ‘413 patents have been received and retained by the Clerk of this Court.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between competing producers of satellites and satellite networking systems, ViaSat plaintiffs asserted that Space Systems/Loral infringed the ‘875 patent. As explained by the district court, the ViaSat plaintiffs are corporations that develop commercial and military satellite and digital communication technologies. SS/L is a wholly owned subsidiary of Loral, and both SS/L and Loral are also involved in the satellite business. In 2006, ViaSat and SS/L began negotiating over the possibility of collaborating on a major satellite construction project.

SS/L moved for summary judgment arguing that the earliest date at which ViaSat’s claims to the ‘875 Patent had written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 was March 25, 2009. The ‘875 Patent is a “continuation-in-part” application, and ViaSat argued that it claims priority to a series of provisional applications that it filed in 2006.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Unwired Planet LLC (“Unwired Planet”) filed a patent infringement action against Google and it originally identified 124 claims from ten patents as its asserted claims against Google. Unwired subsequently reduced the number of its claims. At the August 20, 2013 case management conference, the parties offered different proposals for further reduction of Unwired’s asserted claims as well as reduction of Google’s prior art references.

With respect to reducing the prior art references, Google asserted that limitations on its prior art defenses “has the effect of depriving Google of viable defenses to Unwired Planet’s claims,” but proposed a reduction if the court directed it. Unwired disagreed and proposed its own reductions to Google’s prior art references. The district court then ordered 12 references per patent and no more than 40 claims asserted after claim construction and 4 references per patent and no more than 20 references before trial.

Google sought reconsideration of the district court’s order and the district court found that it had committed clear error.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the ongoing battle between Activision TV, Inc. (“Activision”) and the Attorney General for the State of Nebraska, Activision filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to bar the Attorney General from enforcing a cease and desist order entered against Activision’s counsel. The district court had previously determined that the Attorney General could not preclude Activision’s counsel from representing Activision in the current patent infringement action pending in federal court in Nebraska. The district court was now faced with the issue of whether the Attorney General could order counsel for Activision (Farney Daniels) to cease and desist initiation of all new patent infringement enforcement efforts in Nebraska.

In response to the motion, the Attorney General first argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to determine the issue because the cease and desist order applies to Farney Daniels and not to Activision and, as a result, Farney Daniels lacked standing to raise these issues because it is not a party to the action pending before the district court.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

WiLAN USA, Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) filed a patent infringement action against Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (“Alcatel-Lucent”). After a lengthy claim construction order, the parties filed a joint motion to vacate the claim construction order and dismiss the pending lawsuit. The motion consisted of a single page and contained no points and authorities in support of the motion.

The district court was not impressed by the single page motion, which did not include a memorandum of law as required by the local rules. “The one-page Motion, which seeks in part a vacatur of the 75-page Order [ECF No. 141] of September 9, 2013 (“September 9 Order”) on claim construction following a day-long Markman hearing, is unaccompanied by a memorandum of law. See Local Rule 7.1(a)(1).”
Continue reading