Articles Posted in District Courts

Published on:

by

In a recent case from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the district court held that the defendant was not liable for patent infringement based on the doctrine of divided infringement. The district court based its ruling on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

In Centillion, the Federal Circuit analyzed a patent that disclosed a system for collecting, processing, and delivering information from a service provider, such as a telephone company, to a customer. The Federal Circuit focused its decision on the word “use” — agreeing that “direct infringement by ‘use’ of a system claim ‘requires a party … to use each and every … element of a claimed [system.]” Id. at 1285. The Federal Circuit also stated that “to use’ a system for the purposes of infringement, a party must put the invention into service, i.e., control the system as a whole and obtain benefit from it.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the district court considered defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity. The plaintiff’s patent is directed to a computer program for developing a component based software for the insurance industry. The patent contained both method and system claims.

Defendant’s moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the patent was invalid under Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010), contending “that the claims of the [patents] contain abstract ideas and fail the machine or transformation test.” Defendant contended that the plaintiff’s patents failed the “machine” prong of the Bilski test because the claims only require aspects of a general purpose computer. In addition, the defendant contended that the transformation test also could not be met because the transfer of data regarding insurance cases from one electronic file to another does not transform physical objects to another state or thing. According to the defendant, all of the claims reflect field of use restrictions or insignificant post-solution activity and, therefore, constitute unpatentable abstract ideas under § 101.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a patent case pending against Intel in the District of New Mexico, the plaintiff sought to compel the production of Intel’s future products that were under development. The litigation involved plaintiff’s claim that Intel infringed its patent for a process called “double patterning,” which is a process that allows for the manufacture of smaller, more powerful computer processor chips.

Plaintiff sought production from Intel of a certain size of Intel chips that were not yet sold to the public and that would not be marketed until after September 2012, a date which is after the plaintiff’s patent expires. Intel argue that the information was not relevant to a reasonable royalty calculation and production of the information would be overly burdensome because the processes were likely to change multiple times before the launch of the product.

The plaintiff argued that it was entitled to production of the information under the theory of “accelerated market entry” and that production of research and development documents would not be overly burdensome.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

One of the district courts in the Eastern District of Texas has issued several orders in multi-defendant patent infringement cases addressing whether changes to the court’s normal scheduling orders were necessary. The district court has previously expressed concern in several cases that defendants may be faced with a Hobson’s choice of spending more than the settlement range on discovery “or settling for less than their cost of defending the case, regardless of the merits of the case.” The district court has expressed concern that the Patent Rules may not provide the most efficient case management schedule in those situations because of the quick discovery deadlines in the Eastern District of Texas.

In addressing a plaintiff that has sued 95 defendants across seven cases, the district court began by noting that it had previously expressed concern in cases where a plaintiff may assert questionable patent claims to extract cost of defense settlements. “The Court has previously expressed concern about cases where a plaintiff asserts questionable patent claims against a large number of Defendants to extract cost of defense settlements.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent decision from New Jersey, the district court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion because the plaintiff’s patents did not qualify as patentable subject matter under the machine-or-transformation, which the United States Supreme Court has recently determine remains a useful test in determining patentable subject matter. In re Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).

The patents at issue claim processes directed to a system for processing information from a template file to an application using “content instructions” and “customizable transmission format instructions” on a programmed computer. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s website infringed the patents because the website allowed customers to input information into a template as part of the purchase process. The defendant argued that the patents were invalid because they claim unpatentable abstract ideas.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a case involving application of the “first-filed action” doctrine and transfer, the district court in the Eastern District of Texas transferred a case as to one defendant but severed and kept the case as to two other defendants. One of the defendants in Texas, Interwoven, began the litigation, not in Texas, but in the Northern District of California by filing suit against Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. seeking a declaration that the Vertical patents were invalid and were not infringed by Interwoven. Vertical subsequently filed a patent infringement action on the same patents against Interwoven and two additional defendants, Samsung and LG, in the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung then filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California.

In analyzing the first-filed action doctrine on a motion to transfer, the district court agreed that the Interwoven action was filed first and that therefore the case against Interwoven should be transferred to the Northern District of California. The district court disagreed with Samsung, however, and found that the action against Samsung should remain in Texas as Samsung was not a party to the first filed case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The district court determined that plaintiff had waived the attorney-client privilege because the plaintiff’s in-house counsel revealed too much information in answering questions during a deposition. The defendants raised the waiver issue in the context of a motion to compel by contending that the plaintiff’s in-house counsel’s answers during a deposition revealed attorney-client communications and therefore waived the privilege regarding the plaintiff’s motivation in seeking the reissuance of its patent.

The district court found that the in-house counsel “expanded on the statements to the PTO, revealing that because of the issue of the different effective filing dates, there was a specific concern that the mixed subject matter claims were technically anticipated by” another published application. The in-house counsel also explained that there were additional communications between himself and other in-house and outside counsel that led to this concern. The district court found that these types of statements were sufficient to waive the attorney-client privilege.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In another decision involving sanctions for defendants failure to provide discovery, the district court for the Western District of Michigan granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. The default was granted because the defendant had not participated in discovery. As the district court stated, “Defendants have not participated in discovery, but rather have refused to provide depositions or responses to [plaintiff’s] written discovery requests.”

The district court went on to note that defendants’ conduct was willful in that the defendants had ignored discovery deadlines and previous orders from the district court. “Defendants have ignored discovery deadlines and other obligations imposed both by the Rules of Civil Procedure and explicit orders of the Court.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a recent case in the Eastern District of Texas, the district court addressed the admissibility of a consumer survey to show demand for the patented features in accused products. The district court rejected plaintiff’s consumer surveys and granted the defendants’ motion to exclude plaintiff’s survey experts because the surveys did not measure the purported advantages of plaintiff’s technology.

The surveys measured whether consumers valued incorporating internal antennas in cell phones in place of external antennas. The problem with these surveys, however, was that plaintiff did not invent–and the patents did not claim–internal antennas for cell phones. Instead, the patents were directed only to one type of internal antenna that had increase advantages over other internal antennas and external antennas because of multiband functionality and reduced size. Thus, the surveys did not measure the value of plaintiff’s technology. “While Plaintiff claims that its experts contend that the patents-in-suit are ‘fundamental’ to internal antennas, the surveys are not tied to the alleged advantageous technical characteristics of the patents-in-suit. Put another way, the surveys do not measure how consumers value the purported advantages provided by Plaintiff’s technology.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After a serious delay by the defendant in providing discovery, the district court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s answer and enter a default judgment. The district court found that the defendant continually mislead the plaintiff and the court regarding its discovery obligations and caused the case to be delayed for several years by doing so. “This Court gave [defendant] numerous opportunities to provide the requested documents, yet it chose to produce incomplete responses. . . . [Defendant] and [its counsel] affirmatively misled Plaintiffs — and more importantly, this Court — as to the production of documents and compliance with Court orders. . . . By failing to provide the discovery as ordered, [defendant] has prevented Plaintiffs from pursuing their claims and delayed this litigation for nearly seven years.”
Continue reading