Articles Posted in District Courts

Published on:

by

Plaintiff, Ferring B.V., filed a patent infringement action against Watson Laboratory, Inc. (“Watson Labs”) for tranexamic acid tablets sold under the trademark Lysteda. Watson Labs applied to the FDA for permission to manufacture and sell generic tranexamic acid tablets. Watson Labs filed a counterclaim and answer, including an assertion that the patent-in-suit was invalid. Ferring moved to dismiss the counterclaims for invalidity and to strike invalidity as an affirmative defense.

The district court began its analysis by noting that “[a]s a matter of both fairness and efficiency, it seems improper to permit a defendant to force a plaintiff to choose between ambush at trial and needless preparation for a myriad of potential affirmative defenses consistent with a single broad affirmative defense in the answer. The purpose behind the contemporary reading of Rule 8(a) is to prevent a plaintiff from extorting a settlement from a defendant through the prospect of an expensive, detracted discovery process predicated on threadbare claims that would be seen to be legally insufficient if the circumstances of the alleged wrongdoing were even read, much less put to proof.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The parties, ICOS Vision Systems and Scanner Technologies, have been involved in patent litigation against one another for over ten years. The patents at issue concern technology used to inspect electronic packaging and one of the patents involved the use of ball grid arrays that provide a method of securing the electrical connections between the microchip and circuit board. Scanner owns a patent pertaining to a method of calibrating and inspecting ball grid arrays. With respect to this patent, the district court bifurcated liability and damages and permitted ICOS to file a single summary judgment motion as to whether ICOS had an implied license through legal estoppel and whether the patent was unenforceable due to laches.

With respect to the implied license issue, the district court discussed the prior litigation between the parties in which Scanner had sued ICOS for patent infringement based on eight patents. After extensive litigation, including a trip to the Federal Circuit, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations that ultimately led to Scanner providing a covenant not to sue on these eight patents. The covenant not to sue provided that Scanner would not sue ICOS for infringement based on the methods or products previously or currently made, used or offered for sale in the United States or imported into the United States. Scanner subsequently attempt to revoke the covenant not to sue when ICOS proceeded with its declaratory judgment claim and the district court found that the covenant not to sue did not deprive it of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the declaratory judgment claim.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

SanDisk Corporation (“SanDisk”) brought a declaratory relief action seeking a declaration that its products do not infringe certain patents held by Round Rock Research and that the patents were invalid. Round Rock moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending that its conduct in sending letters to SanDisk in California demanding licensing negotiations were insufficient for the assertion of personal jurisdiction.

According to the district court, Round Rock is a technology research and licensing company that holds thousands of patents and pending patent applications. Round Rock does not manufacture or market products utilizing its patented inventions but instead seeks licensing agreements from parties who do make and sell such products, or pursues litigation against them when it deems it necessary to do so.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent action, Defendants filed a renewed motion to the stay the proceedings pending an inter partes reexamination of the patents-in-suit. The district court had previously denied a similar motion over a year earlier. In the renewed motion, the Defendants contended that circumstances had changed since the district court’s earlier decision and new factors weighed in favor of staying the action pending the reexamination.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a previous ruling in the ongoing lawsuit between Oracle and Google over Android, the district court denied Google’s motion for partial summary judgment on a defense of patent marking. In that ruling, the district court expressed concern that disputes over whether Oracle or Sun products practiced the asserted claims (and therefore required patent marking) might devolve into an infringement analysis at trial. Accordingly, in order to streamline the issues for trial, the district court required the parties to agree upon a procedure to identify and stipulate to Oracle or Sun products that practiced the asserted claims, which the parties did in a stipulation filed with the district court.

Under the first step of the procedure, Oracle submitted a list of Oracle and Sun products that practiced each of the asserted patents, the supporting source-code citations for each product, and a summary of testimony that it intended to elicit at trial in support of the identifications. In the next step, Google was required to identify any other Oracle products that Google contended practiced any of the 26 asserted claims and identify any products that Oracle listed which Google contended did not practice the claims. Google was also required to explain why.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff was the inventor of a toy glider and was issued a patent in 1992. Plaintiff formed a partnership called Wingers Co. After forming Wingers, Plaintiff then sent a letter to the defendant introducing the toy glider and ultimately an agreement was entered into between Allied (the defendant), Wingers Co. and Plaintiff (the “License Agreement”) in 1993.

Under the License Agreement, plaintiff granted Allied an exclusive license “thereby permitting and designating Allied to be the sole and exclusive manufacturer, distributors and marketing company of Wingers, and any and all derivative toy products thereof.” In exchange, Allied agreed to pay royalties.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Apple’s patent infringement action against Motorola, Apple claimed that certain Motorola devices running the Android operating system infringe two of its network component patents. Motorola moved for summary judgment.

According to the district court, “Claim 1 of the ‘486 patent describes ‘replaceable…component’s]’ in a layered computing system. (The ‘852 patent incorporates the replaceable component system of ‘486 by reference at 13:22-44, and my interpretation of the terms applies equally to both patents’ claims.) The use of replaceable components promotes program flexibility and facilitates customization because replaceability enables the user to alter functionality customization because replaceability enables the user to alter functionality within a given program. The prior art was ‘application-based,’ which meant that users had to accept an application’s functionality as is or not use it at all.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Gerber Scientific International (“Gerber”) filed a patent infringement action against Roland DGA Corporation (“Roland”), asserting that Roland infringed Gerber’s patent covering a method and apparatus for computerized graphic production. Roland filed a motion for protective order with respect to the depositions of three of its Japanese employees and its president.

In its motion for protective order, Roland argued that the depositions of its three Japanese employees should take place in Japan and that the deposition of its president should not take place at all because he is a senior executive with no unique or specialized knowledge relevant to the case. With respect to the employees in Japan, Roland argued that witnesses should be deposed near their residence or their place of business and both parties could equally bear the costs, as such Gerber could not satisfy its burden of proving that circumstances exist that warrant taking the depositions in the United States.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the district court found that defendant’s electronic control device literally infringed certain claims of a patent owned by Taser and denied defendant’s summary judgment motion on defendant’s claims of invalidity and unenforceability, Taser filed a motion for contempt and an application for an order to show cause. In its motion, Taser asserted that Karbon Arms had purchased defendant’s assets as part of an insolvency proceeding and that Karbon Arms was producing the Karbon MPID which was essentially the same as the enjoined product sold by defendant.

The district court then noted that “[i]n order to enforce an injunction in a patent case, the party seeking to do so ‘must prove both that the newly accused product is not more than colorably different from the product found to infringe and that the newly accused product actually infringes.’ TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar, 646 F.3d 869, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).” To apply the “more than colorable differences” test, the court must first compare the features that were found infringing to the corresponding feature of the newly accused products. If the court finds that only colorable differences exist, then the court must determine whether the newly accused product infringes the relevant claims.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff, Two Moms and a Toy, filed an emergency motion to stay the expert phase of their case pending the court’s ruling on claim construction. The plaintiff’s motion was based on the argument that “expert reports and expert discovery in a patent infringement case is extremely expensive and that a ruling on claim construction could end this case and at the very least will provide the parties with needed guidance and information for assessing the patent’s strength which will hopefully result in a settlement of the case.”

The court was not persuaded by the plaintiff’s argument. Indeed, it agreed with the defendant that it was “thinly veiled request for reconsideration of my two previous ruling denying motions to extend or otherwise modify the case schedule.” The court noted that these argument could have, and should have been, raised in connection with the earlier requests to amend the schedule that were denied by the court. “All of the arguments about expense and efficiency could have been made in connection with the parties’ previous Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order.”
Continue reading