Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Nu Flow Technologies (2000) Inc. (“Nu Flow) filed a patent infringement action against Defendant A.O. Reed & Company (“A.O. Reed”) and ten Doe defendants based on two patents U.S. Patent No. 7,849,883 B2 (the ‘883 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,691,741 132 (the ‘741 patent). The ‘883 patent, entitled “Liner Assembly for Pipeline Repair and Methods of Installing Same,” claims a liner assembly used to repair a pipeline. The ‘741 patent, entitled “Installation Assemblies for Pipeline Liners, Pipeline Liners and Methods for Installing the Same,” claims an installation assembly and a method for installing a liner in a pipeline.

A.O. Reed moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Complaint should be dismissed because Nu Flow’s allegations of joint infringement fail to meet the pleading standard of Twombly and Iqbal. Joint infringement exists only “if one party exercises control or direction over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party, i.e., the mastermind.” Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Digital Ally, Inc. (“Digital Ally”) filed a declaratory judgment action pertaining to patent infringement against Utility Associates, Inc. (“Utility”). Utility filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction.

Digital Ally is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas. It sells advanced digital video systems to consumers, including law enforcement agencies, across the country. Utility, which is a competitor of Digital Ally, is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Georgia. Utility has no offices in Kansas and none of its employees or sales agents reside in Kansas. Utility is not registered to do business in Kansas, but it does sell some products to a few customers in Kansas.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action and also filed an application to proceed in pro per and In Forma Pauperis. The defendants file a motion to dismiss the action based on false statements in the application.

As the district court explained, “[t]he Application requires the applicant to detail all sources of income he has received within the last twelve months and to declare under penalty of perjury that all of the information provided is true. The Declaration further notes that the applicant understands that a false statement may result in a dismissal of the claims.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After a jury returned a verdict against Marvell for patent infringement, Carnegie Mellon (“CMU”) filed several motions, including for prejudgment interest, for supplemental damages, for enhanced damages, for an ongoing, increased royalty rate triple what the jury found, and for a permanent injunction.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff SecureBuy, LLC (“SecureBuy”) filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings pending resolution of a Covered Business Methods (“CBM”) review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”). When the motion was stayed, the PTAB had not yet granted review of the CBM petition.

Before ruling on the stay request, the district court had previously heard argument on defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction or in the alternative for expedited discovery and an expedited trial. The district court denied the preliminary injunction but granted Defendant’s request to expedite the case and scheduled trial for August of 2014. When it opposed the preliminary injunction and expedited trial, SecureBuy made similar arguments as it raised in its motion to say pending the CBM review, which the district court considered when ruling on the previous motion.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement case, the district court received a number of motions to strike portions of expert reports and to exclude the testimony of certain experts. As stated by the district court, it received the following: “Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report and Exclude the Testimony of Richard Belgard Regarding Infringement by Systematically Reseeding Pseudorandom Number Generators” [#247 filed January 27, 2014]; plaintiffs “Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dell Expert Witness Dr. Markus Jakobsson” [#252 filed January 31, 2014]; the “Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report and Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Stephen Melvin Regarding Statistical Confidence Levels” [#254 filed February 3, 2014]; “Defendant Dell Inc.’ s Sealed Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Robert Mills” [#258 filed February 5, 2014]; and plaintiffs “Sealed Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Stephen Magee” [#266 filed February 13, 2014].
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Potter Voice submitted an expert declaration of David Klausner for the purpose of claim construction. Microsoft moved to exclude the declaration under Fed.R.Evid. 702.

The district court explained the background of the patent as follows: In 1998, United States patent number 5,729,659 (the ‘659 patent) was issued to Jerry L. Potter. Plaintiff, Potter voice Technologies LLC, now owns the ‘659 patent. The ‘659 patent describes a method and apparatus for controlling a digital computer using oral input. The patent infringement claims alleged in Potter’s complaint are based on four distinct software products: (1) BlackBerry Voice Commands; (2) Google Voice Search; (3) Google Voice Actions; and (4) Windows Speech Commands. Potter alleges that the defendants infringe the ‘659 patent when these software products are used on mobile phones.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff GPNE Corporation (“GPNE”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple. As part of its case, GPNE wanted to retain two experts, Ghobad Heidari and Kamran Etemad, and Apple objected for two reasons. First, as explained by the court, Apple argued that if Heidari and Etemad are given access to Apple’s confidential information (as would be required for them to act as experts), Apple would suffer extreme prejudice in the marketplace as both Heidari and Etemad are active in patenting mobile technology. Second, Apple argued that the patent prosecution bar within the protective order prohibited Heidari and Etemad from being granted access to its proprietary information, as both men have patent applications now pending before the Patent and Trademark Office.

After citing some recent decisions from the Northern District of California on experts, the court considered the risk to Apple if Heidari were granted access to its confidential information. “Heidari presents precisely the same risks as the expert in Symantec. He is an active consultant in the field at issue. In the very recent past, he has worked for several of Apple’s competitors, and there has been no representation or agreement that he will not do so again in the very near future. Apple points out several ways in which the information to which he would be exposed as an expert in this case could influence his work as a consultant on patent licensing, reverse engineering, and portfolio management, even if he were to make his best efforts to cabin the information off in his mind, and the court finds these concerns persuasive. Furthermore, despite the concerns raised by Apple, GPNE has not identified any unique qualifications or knowledge that make Heidari better suited than any other expert to serve.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Petitioner, BlackBerry Corporation and BlackBerry Limited (“Blackberry”), filed a petition on October 30, 2012, for an inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-12 of US Patent No. 6,871,048 (“the ‟048 patent”). On March 18, 2013, the Board instituted trial on claims 1-12 of the ‟048 patent based on all grounds of unpatentability alleged in the petition.

After institution of trial, Patent Owner, MobileMedia Ideas LLC (“MobileMedia”), filed a patent owner response, Blackberry filed a reply, and an oral hearing was held on October 18, 2013. On December 16, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding, which the PTAB only granted in part, terminating the proceeding with respect to Blackberry, but not with respect to MobileMedia.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Accused infringers have long relied on the Declaratory Judgment Act (“the Act”) to bring actions against patent owners to clear any cloud over their accused business activities. To that end, the Act has served as a powerful tool. Accused infringers do not even have to wait to be named as a defendant in an infringement lawsuit before bringing their own cause of action, as a plaintiff, for declaratory relief that the patent-at-issue is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. The Act, however, requires that the party seeking declaratory relief establish that a “case or controversy” exist from the moment it files its action. Although many courts, including the Supreme Court, have provided guidance as to where to draw the line above which a sufficient case or controversy exits, that line is still a murky one. What actions must a patent owner take–and when must it take those actions–to trigger the requisite case or controversy allowing an accused infringer to file its action first?

Well, the Federal Circuit recently added further guidance on the issue. In Danisco US, Inc., v. Novozymes A/S, a unanimous panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a district court and held that the patent holder’s conduct prior to the issuance of the patent can form a sufficient case or controversy for declaratory relief.

The relationship between the parties in the case provides important background. The declaratory judgment plaintiff, Danisco, and defendant, Novozymes, compete to develop and supply Rapid Starch Liquefaction (“RSL”) products. Since about 2001, Novozymes had sued Danisco for patent infringement numerous times. In one of those suits, Novozymes amended a pending patent application to claim one of Danisco’s new products, then sued Danisco on the same day the patent issued.

Continue reading