Articles Posted in District Courts

Published on:

by

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action in the Middle District of Florida. Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California. Defendants emphasized in its transfer motion that the Eastern District of California was clearly more convenient than the Middle District of Florida. Ten months after the motion was filed, the Middle District of Florida concluded that the Eastern District of California was indeed a more convenient forum and therefore transfer was appropriate. “The Middle District of Florida emphasized that the transfer was necessary to promote the interests of justice, because the alleged acts of infringement and the uncontested evidence of record demonstrates that the vast majority of the activities relating to the alleged infringement took place and around the Eastern District of California.”

When the case arrived in the Eastern District of California, Plaintiff filed a motion to re-transfer the case back to the Middle District of Florida. Although the parties did not argue in the Middle District of Florida that the Eastern District of California lacked personal jurisdiction over certain of the defendants, the plaintiff now moved to retransfer the case because the Eastern District of California did not have personal jurisdiction over two of the defendants.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a patent case filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by Illinois Tool Works (“ITW”) against Elektromanufaktur Zangenstein Hanauer GmbH & Co. KGaA (“EMZ”), EMZ moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as well as for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). EMZ alternatively moved for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).

EMZ’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim rested on its assertion that ITW’s failure to identify an accused product in the complaint rendered ITW’s infringement claims ambiguous and conclusory. Specifically, EMZ argued that “the complaint’s reference to unspecified and generically-labeled ‘latching mechanisms’ as the allegedly infringing product is not sufficient to provide EMZ fair or adequate notice as to what ITW’s claim of infringement is and the grounds upon which it rests.” In response, ITW argued that the complaint was sufficient because it alleged that the infringing products “are latching mechanisms for washing machines sold to manufacturers, such as Whirlpool, that EMZ knew were bound for the United States.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. (“ActiveVideo”) prevailed on a patent infringement action against Verizon Communications, Inc. (“Verizon”) before a jury, ActiveVideo moved for a permanent injunction. ActiveVideo moved to enjoin Verizon’s further use of Verizon’s Video on Demand (“VOD”) services offered through its FiOS system. Verizon opposed the motion and also asked for a “sunset” provision in the event the district court deemed an injunction appropriate. Verizon also asked the district court to stay any injunction pending appeal.

After reviewing the requirements of a permanent injunction in a patent infringement matter with particular reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the district court turned to analyzing the traditional four-factor test for determining whether an injunction was appropriate in this case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the ongoing action between Apple and Samsung, Apple filed a motion for a protective order seeking to prohibit one of Samsung’s attorneys from participating in any further depositions. Alternatively, Apple sought an order restricting the attorney from engaging in particularly abusive deposition acts, including belligerent and insulting treatment of witnesses, repeated interruptions, unilaterally terminating a deposition, uncivil treatment of opposing counsel, engaging in lengthy colloquy on the record, among other things.

Samsung objected to the order and denied that any in appropriate conduct had occurred at all Samsung also noted that Apple’s witnesses were Apple’s patent lawyers and agents who are accustomed to the adversarial process.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the ongoing trial over damages for several Microsoft products between Lucent and Microsoft, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has reduced the damage award against Microsoft from $70 million to $26.3 million, plus prejudgment interest. The new trial on damages occurred after the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury’s finding that the so-called Day patent was valid and infringed but reversed the jury’s determination of damages. The Day patent claims a date-picker feature in the calendar function of Outlook, one of just many uses for Microsoft’s popular Outlook program. The Federal Circuit remanded the case for a new trial on damages to determine an appropriate royalty based on one feature of Outlook.

After the jury returned a verdict of $70 million, the district court addressed whether the amount should be reduced on post-trial motions. Before addressing that issue, the district court noted that “[t]his case illustrates the difficulty of properly valuing a small patented component, without a stand-alone market, within a larger program.” Lucent’s damage calculation was based on a lump-sum license in the form of an upfront, paid-in-full royalty. The royalty calculation is particularly difficult in this case because the date-picker feature is just one among many Outlook features and Outlook, although sold separately, is much more commonly purchased as part of the suite of products found in Microsoft Office.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In three patent cases brought by the same plaintiff, Raylon LLC, against numerous defendants, Judge Davis of the Eastern District of Texas denied Rule 11 sanctions and motions for attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Statute, and Section 1927 of Title 28.

Following the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, Defendants filed motions contending that Raylon’s infringement theory was “so legally untenable” that fees and costs should be awarded under Sections 285 and 1927. Defendants earlier had filed a Rule 11 motion seeking sanctions. Raylon asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,655,589 (“the ‘589 patent”) against all of the defendants. All of the claims of the ‘589 patent require a “display being pivotably mounted on said housing.” Raylon argued that this should be construed to mean “an electronic device attached to a housing that visually presents information and allows the display to be moved or pivoted relative to the viewer’s perspective” and alleged that infringement was found where the entire device, not just the display, could be pivoted to the view. Defendant EZ Tag sought a construction of the term to mean that “an integral computer screen which can move positions with regard to the computer housing and is not maintained in a fixed position.” The remaining defendants argued that it should mean “the display must be mounted on the housing and the mounting of the display on the housing must be pivotable so that the display and housing may pivot with respect to each other.” The Court construed the term as “the display must be mounted on the housing so that the display and housing may pivot with respect to each other.” Because it was undisputed that all of the defendants’ accused products had displays that were rigidly mounted as to the housing, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the continuing battle over the Android operating system, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California decided to appoint its own damage expert. The district court explained that under Fed.R.Evid. 706(a), the district court “may appoint expert witnesses of its own selection” and noted that the Supreme Court has long recognized the constitutionality of court-appointed experts. The district court also noted that the Federal Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have acknowledged and recognized that the district courts enjoy wide latitude in making such appointments.

After explaining the authority for the appointment of expert witnesses, the district court turned to why such an appointment was necessary in the ongoing battle between Google and Oracle. Stating that “[t]he damages aspect of this controversy is particularly involved,” the district court noted that “[t]he accused items are not entire products but rather elements of products, whose roles and relative importance within the larger units are disputed.” The parties also further complicated the damage analysis by using elaborate nontraditional business models for distributing and monetizing the relevant products. “For example, Google allegedly distributes its accused Android software free of charge, hoping to later benefit from improved market position and advertising revenue generated by Google searches on Android devices. Oracle, for its part, claims to have been harmed by the supposed fragmentation of its Java platform and developer community due to Google’s allegedly selective use of Java elements in Android.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In December 2004 and early in 2005, the plaintiff filed three patent infringement actions against several parties. The district court consolidated the cases. All of the consolidated cases were stayed by the district court pending reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Many years later, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”) upheld the validity of two of the patents. As a result, the plaintiff moved to lift the stay of the consolidated actions. Defendants opposed the lifting of the stay.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the defendant moved to exclude plaintiff’s expert witness on the basis that the expert was not disclosed on a timely basis. The plaintiff disclosed the witness on November 4, 2011, as an expert to testify as to “the molecular weigh characterization of polymers” in a claim construction hearing scheduled for November 9, 2011. The deadline for identifying witnesses to give testimony relevant to claim construction expired in July 2011.

In analyzing whether there was surprise as to the expert testimony, the district court began by noting that “[t]o name a witness so far beyond the deadline set by the scheduling order would require a strong justification.” The district court found that “[t]he issue of how molecular weight of a polymer should be measured was clearly identified as an issue for claim construction in the parties’ joint claim construction statement.” From this joint claim construction statement, the district court determined that it was established that plaintiff had notice of “differences as to how the molecular weight of a polymer was measured well before July 29, 2011.” The district court also noted that plaintiff did not suggest otherwise.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In December 2010, Indacon, Inc. (“Indacon”) sued Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) for patent infringement for two patents that pertain to a system for data acquisition and perusal. The plaintiff filed a Markman brief and Facebook filed an inter partes request for reexamination. Facebook then filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the reexamination.

Facebook asserted that the stay was necessary because it filed the inter partes reexamination based on recent briefing by Indacon. Facebook claimed it had filed the reexamination request based on the Markman briefing filed by Indacon, asserting that it had three invalidating prior art references that were not before the PTO. Based on the reexamination filing, Facebook argued that the district court should temporarily stay the litigation because discovery “is far from complete and a trial date has not been set” and the stay would not unduly prejudice the plaintiff.
Continue reading