Articles Posted in District Courts

Published on:

by

In August 2011, Google filed a motion to strike portions of the opening and reply expert reports of Oracle’s expert on patent infringement. Google argued that much of the report was not supported by Oracle’s infringement contentions as required by the Northern District of California’s local patent rules. The district court noted that Patent Local 3-1 “requires detailed disclosure of a party’s patent infringement contentions. “Although Oracle supplemented its disclosures on two occasions after Google raised objections, Oracle declined to supplement a third time despite Google’s contention that they were still inadequate. Oracle was also warned that if the disclosures later proved to be inadequate to support its infringement theories, there would be no chance to cure the defects.

As part of Patent Local 3-1, Oracle was required in its infringement contentions to include a chart that identified where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each accused product. Google asserted that two of the functions, vfork() and clone() were not identified in the claim charts, but that Oracle’s expert relied on them to satisfy certain of the claim limitations in the patents-in-suit. The district court agreed with Google on the limitation for the “process cloning mechanism”: “Oracle’s operative infringement contentions did not identify the vfork() or clone () functions as satisfying the ‘process cloning mechanism’ limitation of Claim 6. This is not disputed. Oracle therefore may not now rely on those functions as satisfying that claim limitation.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action and subsequently filed a partial motion for summary judgment. In the partial motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff contended that there were no acceptable and available, non-infringing alternatives to the claimed inventions during the relevant damage period. The district court granted the motion.

Prior to trial, the plaintiff filed a motion in limine to preclude the defendant from introducing at trial evidence or argument that tubal ligation was an acceptable non-infringing alternative during the damages period. With one caveat, the district court granted the motion.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff sued defendant for patent infringement for direct and indirect infringement for the commercial sale and/or use of the defendant’s asset tracking solutions product. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that plaintiff failed to identify an infringing instrumentality and also failed to allege facts of indirect infringement.

Defendant’s first argument, that plaintiff failed to identify the instrumentality accused of infringement, was disregarded by the district court. The district court found that plaintiff had identified the accused instrumentality by naming the Asset Tracking Solutions product. The defendant’s argument that it did not sell or make such a product was a factual dispute that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The district court also found that plaintiff’s allegations complied with Form 18 and therefore this part of the motion of the motion to dismiss was denied.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The ongoing patent battles between Apple and Samsung continue to pick up speed and show no signs of slowing down anytime soon. During the summer, Apple filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on certain of its patents and the district court ordered limited initial discovery for the topics raised by the preliminary injunction motion. The hearing on the motion is set for October 13, 2011.

As part of the discovery, Apple sought documents pertaining to the comparison of any Apple product or feature, the redesign of the Galaxy Tab following the release of the iPad 2, consumer surveys regarding the products at issue, marketing and consumer confusion. Apple also sought a deposition of Samsung pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) on the same topics as the documents requested. Samsung resisted discovery on certain of these issues and Apple moved to compel.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants, including DirecTV and Vizio, which alleged infringement of multiple patents related to video compression technology. DirecTV and Vizio answered the complaint an alleged affirmative defenses of patent exhaustion and license.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion and license. DirecTV contended that its licensed suppliers made authorized sales pursuant to a 2002 license and a 2009 license and that these authorized sales exhausted MPT’s patent rights . MPT argued that even though DirecTV’s manufacturers are licensed, the manufacturers’ sales of certain products exceeded the scope of the license. In response, DirecTV argued that patent exhaustion applied because DirecTV’s licensed suppliers’ sales to DirecTV were authorized sales, and authorized sales exhaust a patentee’s rights to sue others who subsequently use or sell the same article that allegedly infringes the patents.
Continue reading

Published on:

by


It appears that the announced death of inequitable conduct claims may have been premature. As described below, yet another court allowed such claims to survive summary judgment.

A court in the Northern District of Illinois denied summary judgment on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no unenforceability. Citing the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 2011 WL 2028255 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2011), the court reiterated the new, heightened standard for proving inequitable conduct that to prevail on such a claim, “the accused infringer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant knew of the [prior art] reference, knew that it was material, and made a deliberate decision to withhold it.” Slip Op. at 15. Moreover, “merely proving that the applicant should have known of the reference’s materiality is insufficient. Though a district court may infer intent from indirect and circumstantial evidence, in order to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard, the specific intent to deceive must be ‘the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence.'” Id. Finally, the accused infringer must prove that the omitted reference is but-for material by showing that the PTO would not have allowed the claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art. Id.

The accused infringer claimed that the patentee engaged in inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patent-in-suit by improperly adding new matter by: (1) submitting an incorrect English translation of the international application; (2) representing to the USPTO that no new matter had been added to the substitute specification filed with the USPTO; and (3) representing that the substitute specification had been provided as required by the Examiner and omitting the proper substitute specification.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a ruling that is likely to become more and more common after the passage of the America Invents Act, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed all but one of the defendants in a patent infringement action for improper joinder. In February 2010, the plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo and Sony for allegedly infringing a patent for dynamic power management of solid-state memories. The plaintiff alleged that each of the defendants sells computers and/or computer systems that infringe the patent-in-suit.

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint to join five additional defendants on the ground that the new defendants’ products also allegedly infringe the patent-in-suit. The existing defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as to all but one of the defendants based on the argument that the defendants were misjoined in the action.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff AlmondNet, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation based on four patents pertaining to Internet advertising. Microsoft filed several affirmative defenses and counterclaims against AlmondNet, including a defense and counterclaim that AlmondNet engaged in inequitable conduct before the PTO by failing to disclose three articles related to Internet advertising and three existing Internet advertising systems. AlmondNet moved to dismiss the inequitable conduct counterclaim and the district court granted the motion with leave to amend to plead inequitable conduct with particularity.

Microsoft subsequently amended its answer and counterclaim and AlmondNet moved to strike the inequitable conduct defense and to dismiss Microsoft’s counterclaim for inequitable conduct. The district court determined that Microsoft’s amended pleading was sufficient and denied the motion.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action against the defendant alleging that certain of defendant’s T-shirt transfer products infringed plaintiff’s patent. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim which accused the plaintiff of inequitable conduct in amending its patent during a reissuance of the patent. Defendant claimed that plaintiff deliberately pursued a broadened reissue patent based on her learning of material faults in the patent after having had an opportunity to analyze defendant’s products and technology. Defendant’s primary contention was that the amendments made during the reissuance proceeding added new material to the patent.

As the district court wrote, “[a] reissue patent that enlarges the scope of the claims contained in an original patent shall not be granted unless it is applied for within two years of the grant of the original patent.” The reissue application for the patent-in-suit was filed more than two years after the issuance of the patent. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the inequitable conduct defense on the grounds that the facts alleged did not support a plausible inference that the plaintiff (1) made an affirmative misrepresentation of material fact or failed to disclose material information to the PTO during the reissue examination and (2) intended to deceive the PTO.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Hurricane Shooters, LLC sought summary judgment of no invalidity on Defendant’s defenses of prior inventorship under Section 102(g) and lack of utility under Section 101. The patents-in-suit involve drinking cups for serving mixed drinks in bars and restaurants having a plural chamber that optimizes the mixing of fluids as they are simultaneously poured while minimizing interference with the nose of the drinker.

Defendant’s invalidity defense was based on a plural chamber “bomb cup” invented by a competitor. Rejecting Plaintiff’s evidence of an earlier date of invention in August 2004 consisting only of the uncorroborated inventor’s testimony, Plaintiff’s inventors’ evidence showed that they invented their plural chamber cup in November of 2004. Defendant, however, presented evidence that its plural chamber cup was invented in October 2004. The Hurricane Shooters court was faced with the issue of whether Defendant’s evidence of an earlier invention was sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Continue reading