Articles Posted in District Courts

Published on:

by

In the patent infringement action brought by Carnegie Mellon University (“Carnegie Mellon” or “CMU”) against Marvell Technology Group, LTD. (“Marvell’), the jury returned a verdict in favor of Carnegie Mellon in the amount of $1.17 billion, finding that Marvell had infringed two patents owned by Carnegie Mellon. The jury also found that Marvell’s infringement of the patents was willful, paving the way for the potential for enhanced damages as well as an award of attorneys’ fees. Marvell has vowed to challenge the damage award before the district court and, if necessary, the Federal Circuit.

A few days before the jury returned its verdict, Carnegie Mellon filed a motion to preclude Marvell from relying on an advice of counsel defense to defend against the charge of willful infringement. Carnegie Mellon filed a motion to strike the testimony of one of Marvell’s witnesses and also to preclude Marvell from relying on an advice of counsel defense.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Suffolk Technologies, LLC (“Suffolk”) brought a patent infringement action against AOL and Google. Suffolk’s complaint alleged that “AOL and Google have infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,082,835 (135 patent) entitled “Internet Server and Method of Controlling an Internet Server.” The ‘835 patent claims a method of controlling an internet server whereby the server receives a hypertext transfer protocol file request from a web browser with an identification signal and then compares the identification signal with one or more predetermined identification signals, and based on the results of the comparison, a file may be transmitted from the server back to the requesting web browser.”

AOL and Google filed a motion to dismiss the action based on lack of standing. As explained by the district court, “[t]his patent infringement suit presents the increasingly common, but always vexing jurisdictional question whether plaintiff, the assignee of the patent in issue, possesses ”all substantial rights’ to the patent, such that it has standing to sue putative infringers.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In December 2010, plaintiff Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against several defendants, including Apple, LG and Canon. The complaint accused the defendants of infringing several patents pertaining to video compression technology. The district court subsequently granted Canon’s motion for summary judgment based on exhaustion. Prior to trial, the remaining defendants filed a motion to exclude MPT’s infringement expert’s analysis under the doctrine of equivalents.

After reviewing the standard for a Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony, the district court turned to the specific standard for infringement of means-plus-function claims. “A patent infringement analysis proceeds in two steps. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370. In the first step, the court construes the asserted claims as a matter of law. See id. In the second step, the factfinder compares the claimed invention to the accused device. Id.; see also Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“A determination of infringement is a question of fact . . . .”). “To prove literal infringement, the patentee must show that the accused device contains every limitation in the asserted claims. If even one limitation is missing or not met as claimed, there is no literal infringement.” Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

With the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18532 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2012), the elements for proving inducing infringement changed significantly. As a result, we can expect that a number of plaintiffs in pending patent cases will seek to amend their complaints to take advantage of the new standard. Whether amendment will be granted or not will vary depending on the stage of the case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Over the weekend, Apple and HTC settled all of the long running patent suits that both companies had filed against each other in multiple jurisdictions. Although few details of the settlement were released in the two sentence press release that included brief quotes from HTC and Apple, the companies did state the the they had reached a “global settlement” that included dismissal of all current lawsuits. The companies also specified that the license extends to current and future patents held by both parties for the next ten years. The remainder of the terms, including the financial terms, are confidential.

And so one of the earliest and longest patent battles over smartphones ended quietly. Although no monetary terms were disclosed, it is likely that HTC is paying a royalty to Apple in order to put an end to the litigation. The impact on HTC from the Apple lawsuits was significant, hurting both its stock price and its ability to timely ship product due to the exclusion order Apple obtained at the ITC. As a result of the settlement, HTC will now be able to focus on making and selling products instead of litigation. That can only be a positive for HTC.

But what about Apple?
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendants BRP US Inc. and Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. (“Bombardier” or “BRP”) filed a motion to stay pending the inter partes reexamination of the patents-in-suit asserted by Polaris Industries, Inc. (“Polaris”). Polar manufactures recreational vehicles, including snowmobiles and Polaris obtained patents for rear suspension technology for snowmobiles. Polaris asserts the designs related to these patents improve rider comfort over rough terrain.

Bombardier is a Canadian recreational vehicle company that manufactures the “Ski-Doo” line of snowmobiles and it is also a competitor of Polaris. Bombardier introduced a rear suspension technology for snowmobiles called “rMotion.” Polaris alleged Bombardier’s suspension technology infringes the patents-in-suit. Prior to filing the patent infringement action, Polaris sent Bombardier a notice of infringement letter. As a result, Bombardier initiated an inter partes reexamination of the patents. The patent infringement action was filed one week after the reexamination. The PTO subsequently granted the request for reexamination and Bombardier moved to stay the case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Carnegie Mellon University (“Carnegie Mellon”) filed a patent infringement action against Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. (“Marvell”). As the parties proceeded to trial, both parties filed exhibit lists, deposition designations and objections to the exhibits and the deposition designations. In all, the parties submitted 2700 separately listed exhibits, which both parties claimed that they would or might enter at trial. The parties also listed hundreds of deposition designations and counter designations, which the parties also asserted they would or might use at trial.

The parties also submitted objections to the district court in which they objected to almost every exhibit, deposition designation and counter deposition designation. These objections were presented in a series of spreadsheets that summarized the objections. The actual exhibits or depositions were not included with the objections.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

PB&J Software (PB&J) filed a patent infringement action against defendant Backup Agent. PB&J is the assignee of the 7,356,535 patent (the ‘535 patent) and asserted that Backup Agent was infringing, inducing others to infringe and/or was contributorily infringing at least one claim of the patent by offering services and licensing software implementing what Backup Agent identified as “seed loading.”

Backup Agent moved to dismiss the claim for direct infringement on the ground that PB&J failed to identify the accused product. As explained by the district court, “Defendant maintains that plaintiff failed to state a claim for direct infringement because it fails to identify the accused product. Here, plaintiff identifies infringing activities as including, but not limited to, ‘offering services and licensing software implementing what BackupAgent identifies as a ‘seed loading.’ Defendant argues that plaintiffs pleading deprives defendant of any notice of plaintiffs claims because plaintiff fails to explain in what products, services, or documentation defendant allegedly identifies this ‘seed loading.'”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On December 20, 2010, Plaintiff Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a patent infringement action against Defendants Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), LC Electronics, Inc., LC Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LC Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LC”), and Canon USA, Inc. and Canon, Inc. (collectively “Canon”). The complaint alleged that Defendants are liable for infringement of four patents related to video compression technology: (U.S. Patent Nos. 4,958,226 (“the ‘266 patent”), 5,227,878 (“the ‘878 patent), 5,500,678 (“the ‘678 patent”), and 5,136,377 (“the ‘377 patent”) (collectively the “patents-in-suit”). After MPT served final infringement contentions, Defendants Canon, LC and Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed motions to strike the final infringement contentions.

Canon moved to strike MPT’s final infringement contentions on the ground that that the final contentions alleged, for the first time, that Canon hardware infringes the ‘878 Patent and that these amendments were made without leave of the district court In response, MPT argued that it was allowed to amend its contentions based on the district court’s claim construction order and newly produced discovery.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Motorola moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss Microsoft’s claim for a reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) license agreement to be determined by the district court. As explained by the district court, “Microsoft and Motorola are both members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) and the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”). The IEEE and ITU, neither of which are parties to the instant dispute, are international standards setting organizations. Standards setting organizations play a significant role in the technology market by allowing companies to agree on common technological standards so that all compliant products will work together. Standards lower costs by increasing product manufacturing volume, and they increase price competition by eliminating “switching costs” for consumers who desire to switch from products manufactured by one firm to those manufactured by another.”

Motorola asserted that it would be inappropriate for the district court to fashion a license agreement between Microsoft and Motorola for Motorola’s standard essential patents because no license agreement currently exists. The district court disagreed: “Motorola’s declaration to the ITU and IEEE constitute binding agreements to license its essential patents on RAND terms, and Microsoft is a third-party beneficiary to those agreements and therefore entitled to a license of Motorola’s essential patents on RAND terms. (6/6/12 Order at 13-14.) Indeed, Motorola has agreed that Microsoft is a third-party beneficiary to Motorola’s assurances to license its essential patents on RAND terms. [Footnote omitted.] Nevertheless, Motorola argues, in part, that no license agreement exists between Microsoft and Motorola because Motorola’s commitments to the ITU and IEEE only “bind Motorola to engage in bilateral, good-faith negotiations leading to RAND terms,” but do not require Motorola to grand licenses on RAND terms. (Mot. At 18-20.) This is not what the court held in its June 6, 2012 order, and the court declines to reach that conclusion in this order. Instead, after examining the language of Motorola’s agreements with the ITU and IEEE, the court held that Microsoft is entitled to a RAND license. (6/6/12 Order at 13-14.) To be clear, having previously determined that Microsoft has not repudiated or revoked this right, the court’s prior holding means that Motorola must grant Microsoft a RAND license to its standard essential patents.”
Continue reading