Articles Posted in District Courts

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

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

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

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

Activision TV, Inc. (“Activision”) filed a patent infringement action against Pinnacle Bancorp, Inc. (“Pinnacle”). Counsel for Activision, Farney Daniels, had previously sent letters to companies throughout the United States that Activision believed were infringing its patents. Five of these companies were in Nebraska. The letters requested information to determine if three was infringement of the patents.

As a result of these letters, the Attorney General’s office for the State of Nebraska opened an inquiry. After the action was filed against Pinnacle, the Nebraska Attorney General filed a cease and desist letter against the law firm of Farney Daniels. The cease and desist letter prohibited Farney Daniels from initiation new patent infringement enforcement efforts in the State of Nebraska. Because of the cease and desist order, Farney Daniels asserted it would be unable to represent Activision in this case and in other federal court cases.

Activision then moved for a preliminary injunction to permit Farney Daniels to represent it in the currently pending patent infringement case. The district court conducted a hearing at which it questioned representatives from the Nebraska Attorney General’s office.
Continue reading

As this patent infringement action proceed toward trial, plaintiff Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. (“Kimberly-Clark”) filed a request with the district court on an “extremely time-sensitive case management issue concerning the use of depositions at trial and deposition designations.” During a telephonic status conference, Kimberly-Clark requested that the district require the defendants First Quality Baby Products, LLC (“First Quality”) present at trial any deposition testimony of Kimberly Clark’s testifying employee witnesses when they are called by Kimberly-Clark instead of during First Quality’s case-in-chief.

As part of its request, Kimberly-Clark asserted that its proposed procedure would be more efficient and would prevent delay and any potential confusion that would be created by calling the same witnesses to testify, whether by live testimony or by depositions, during different phases of the trial. First Quality opposed Kimberly-Clark’s request by arguing that this type of procedure would improperly permit Kimberly-Clark to dictate the manner in which First Quality presents its case.
Continue reading

Orbis Corporation (“Orbis”), a manufacturer of commercial baking trays, owns U.S. Patent 6,273,259 (“the ‘259 patent”), which covers a baking tray (“the NPL663 tray”). As explained by the district court, “Orbis sells the NPL663 trays solely to Bimbo Bakeries, Inc. (“Bimbo”), and Bimbo’s affiliated brands. Several years ago, one of those affiliated brands, Sara Lee Corporation (“Sara Lee”) approached the defendant, Rehrig Pacific Company (“Rehrig”), to request that Rehrig design a tray that was both compatible with and similar to the NPL663 tray. Rehrig obliged and designed its SLBT180 tray, which it then began selling to Sara Lee. After several years of allowing Rehrig to sell its SLBT180 tray to Sara Lee, Orbis sued Rehrig, alleging that the SLBT180 tray infringed upon Orbis’ ‘259 patent.”

Rehrig moved for summary judgment based on the “on-sale bar” doctrine pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102, which states that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless…the claimed invention was…on sale” more than one year “before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a-b).
Continue reading

In this patent infringement action between i-Tec Well Soultions, LLC (“i-Tec”) and Peak Completion Technologies, Inc. (“Peak”), the district court issued an unusual order as the case approached trial. With the case expected to be a jury trial, both sides were ordered to submit tailored jury instructions.

The district court, most likely frustrated by the unintelligible jury instructions that are frequently submitted in patent cases, issued an “Order on Confusion.” In the “Order on Confusion,” the district court stated that “the parties must give the court tailored jury instructions written in plain language if they want a jury trial in October.” Thus, the district court made it clear that it wanted jury instructions that could be understood by a jury of lay people even in a complex patent trial.
Continue reading

In this patent infringement action, Defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (“Sirius”) sought a “patent acquisition bar” against plaintiff’s counsel from Freitas Tseng & Kaufman, LLP (“Freitas”). In seeking the bar, Sirius asserted that the Freitas attorneys who would gain access to Sirius’ confidential technical information should be barred from advising any clients in the “acquisition of patents involving satellite radio signal processing for the purpose of asserting them against” Sirius for two years after the conclusion of the litigation, including any appeals. Freitas objected to the patent acquisition bar.
Continue reading

Plaintiff Cobra International, Inc. (“Cobra”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants, including BCNY International (“BCNY”) alleging infringement of a patent for the design of lighted footwear. The defendants create children’s shoes that have a small electrical module with an integrated circuit mounted on a chip. As explained by the district court, “[t]he chip, which is mounted on a circuit board and covered by a dot of epoxy, is a small rectangular piece of silicon less than one-quarter of an inch across on which the various electrical components are formed through a multi-layer process. The chip is connected to a switch, a battery, and a number of LED lights on the outside of the shoe. When the switch is triggered, the LEDs flash in a pattern for a short period and then stop.”

The Defendants moved to exclude two of Cobras expert opinions: (1) the opinion that the schematics relied on by Defendants do not accurately represent the circuit in the accused product; and (2) the opinion that the circuit in the accused product uses the same “logic” as Cobra’s patent.
Continue reading