Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Published on:

by

In IPR2013-00078, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Medley, Easthom and Siu) issued an order in International Business Systems Corporation (“Petitioner”) v. Financial Systems Technology (Intellectual Property) Pty. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) regarding the settlement between the parties and procedure regarding the termination of the procedure. The Petitioner filed its petition on December 12, 2012 and the Patent Owner’s preliminary response would have been due on March 17, 2013.

Before the filing of the Patent Owner’s preliminary response and any subsequent Board decision on the petition, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement contemplating the dismissal of a co-pending district court lawsuit and the termination of the inter partes review proceeding. As a result, the parties sought guidance regarding the filing the settlement agreement and terminating the IPR proceeding.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Vinotemp International (“Vinotemp”) brought suit against Wine Master Cellars, LLP (“Wine Master”). Wine Master filed a counterclaim for patent infringement. Prior to trial, Vinotemp moved to preclude Wine Master from offering evidence of damages at trial.

As explained by the district court, “Vinotemp moves to exclude Wine Master’s evidence of damages on two grounds: (1) Wine Master failed to properly disclose its damages categories and computations under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (e); and (2) Wine Master’s damages are impermissibly speculative.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Positive Technologies, Inc. (“Positive Technologies”) filed a patent infringement action against Sony Electronics and Amazon, among others. Amazon filed a motion for entry of the Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s Model Order regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases (the “Model Order”). The Model Order provides for specific limits on e-discovery.

There are several provisions of the Model Order that should be noted in particular:

“General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 shall not include metadata absent a showing of good cause. However, fields showing the date and time that the document was sent and received, as well as the complete distribution list, shall generally be included in the production.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In Arrival Star S.A.., et al. -v- Meitek Inc., et al., Defendant Meitek Inc. (“Meitek”) moved for Rule 11 sanctions against the Plaintiff Arrival Star S.A. (“Arrival Star”) based on Meitek’s contentions that “ArrivalStar’s counsel (1) failed to prepare any claim construction before filing suit, (2) made a “tactical decision” to sue Meitek instead of its Chinese parent company due to the difficulties of retaining service and recovering judgment against the latter, and (3) improperly relied on the views of a patent practitioner to opine on the issue of infringement.” Meitek sought at least three times its attorneys’ fees of $110,000 and preferably 5 to 10 times this amount, or $550,000 to $1,100,000 in sanctions.

The Court recited the standard under Rule 11 that sanctions may be imposed “when a filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose. The standard governing both the ‘improper purpose’ and ‘frivolous’ inquiries is objective.” (internal citations omitted). The Court further stated that Local Rule 11-9 further provides that the presentation to the Court of frivolous motions subjects the offender at the discretion of the Court to sanctions.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Benjamin Grobler (“Grobler”) filed a patent infringement action against Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“Sony”) alleging direct and indirect (both inducing and contributory) infringement. Grobler subsequently filed an amended complaint that removed the contributory infringement claim and asserted a claim for indirect infringement limited to inducing infringement. Sonly filed a motion dismiss the inducing claim.

As explained by the district court, “Grobler filed this suit against Sony, alleging that Sony infringes the ‘084 Patent by making, using, importing, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, systems for data vending, including the Sony PlayStation Network system. Id. at ¶ 9. Grobler also alleged that Sony infringed one or more claims of the ‘084 Patent by contributing to and/or inducing its customers’ infringement using such systems. Id. Grobler then filed the AC, limiting the indirect infringement claim to a claim that Sony indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘084 Patent by inducing its customers’ infringement using the Sony PlayStation Network system. AC at ¶ 10. Sony now moves to dismiss the induced infringement claims for failure to meet the pleading requirements for indirect patent infringement.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR2012-00001, on January 25, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Lee, Tierney and Cocks) issued an order regarding the conduct of proceedings (“Order”) in Garmin International, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. The Order followed a conference call to discuss any issues the parities may have about the Scheduling Order and the trial procedure. Of interest, the Board clarified the following issues:

  • The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not generally apply to this proceeding
  • Any proposed amendment or substitution of claims must explain how it obviates the ground of unpatentability underlying the institution of the IPR and where the corresponding description support in the specification can be found
  • The explanation should be contained in the motion to amend the claims which is separate from the Patent Owner’s Response
  • The motion to amend the claims should not make any change to claims which are not involved in the proceeding
    Finally, the Board denied the Patent Owner’s request to file a motion for joinder of Chrysler Corporation and JVC Inc. which are allegedly “privies” to the Petitioner on the grounds that the Patent Owner could not represent that either is currently a petitioner in a pending Inter Partes Review involving the patent-at-issue.
    Continue reading
    • Published on:

    by

    In a set of mixed rulings for the parties, the district court denied the parties’ motions for new trial, found Samsung did not willfully infringe Apple’s patents, invalidated certain claims of one of Samsung’s patents, denied Samsung’s motion for indefiniteness of certain of Apple’s patents and denied Apple’s motion for enhanced damages.

    Samsung moved for a new trial asserting that the trial was manifestly unfair. Samsung asserted that: “1) the trial time limitation prejudiced Samsung; (2) allowing Apple
    to point out to the jury which Samsung witness were not called prejudiced Samsung; (3) Samsung’s witnesses were barred from making some arguments, where Apple’s witnesses were allowed to make other arguments; (4) Samsung was required to lay foundation for documents while Apple was not; (5) Samsung was forbidden to play advertisements while Apple was not; and (6) Samsung could not use depositions to cross-examine Apple’s witnesses while Apple was allowed to used deposition testimony during cross examination.”
    Continue reading

    Published on:

    by

    The following ten decisions were reported in patent cases pending in the Central District of California for the period of January 14 through January 31, 2013.

    untitled1.JPG

    The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Greg Cordrey at 949.623.7236 or GCordrey@jmbm.com.

    Published on:

    by

    Under 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(2) and 37 CFR § 42, all “real parties in interests” (RPIs) are required to be named in an Inter Partes Review petition. Failure to name all RPIs could result in denial of a petition. The policy behind this requirement is rooted in the estoppel provisions that apply to decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Namely, a final written decision by the PTAB estops the petitioner (or all real parties in interest) and their privies from asserting invalidity or unpatentability on any ground that the petitioner raised or “raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR or PGR proceeding in a district court, International Trade Commission, or other USPTO proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1), as amended, and 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1). The PTO has also identified potential conflicts of interest and credibility of evidence as reasons for requiring the identification of all RPIs.

    However, there is no clear definition for what constitutes a RPI. Indeed, the lack of a clear standard was by design due to the highly fact-dependent nature of determining who constitutes a real party in interest:

    Who constitutes a real party in interest or privy is a highly fact-dependent question, especially on the issue of whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding nonetheless constitutes a “real party in interest” or “privy” to that proceeding. Courts and commentators agree that there is no “bright-line test” for determining the necessary quantity or degree of participation to qualify as a “real party in interest” or “privy” based on the control concept. See Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 759 (1st Cir. 1994); see also Wright & Miller § 44512 (“The measure of control by a nonparty that justifies preclusion cannot be defined rigidly.”). Accordingly, the Office has not enumerated particular factors regarding a “control” theory of “real party in interest” or “privy” in the proposed rules. Instead, to resolve a real party in interest or privy dispute that may arise during a proceeding, the Board plans to consider each case on its specific facts.

    Continue reading

    Published on:

    by

    Azure Networks, LLC and Tri-County Excelsior Foundation (“Plaintiffs,” “Azure” or “TCEF”) filed a patent infringement action against several defendants, including Qualcomm and Marvell, among others. As explained by the court, “[t]he ‘129 Patent is entitled ‘Personal Area Network with Automatic Attachment and Detachment’ and discloses a Personal Area Network (“PAN”), which is managed by a hub device and can support wireless “attachment” of multiple Personal Electronic Accessories (“PEAs”). ‘129 Patent at 3:10-32.”

    The court further explained the ownership of the patent as follows: “Robert Donaghey, the sole inventor of the ‘129 Patent, assigned his rights to BBN Technologies Corp. (“BBN”) in 2007, who then assigned the ‘129 Patent to Azure. Azure is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Longview, Texas. Complaint at 2. In June 2010, Azure donated numerous patents and patent applications (including the application that later issued as the patent-in-suit) to TCEF. TCEF is a Texas non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas. Id. Only July 30, 2010, TCEF and Azure entered into an exclusive license agreement whereby Azure received a ‘worldwide, transferable, exclusive license under the [‘129 Patent], with the right to sublicense others, to (i) make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import and lease any products, (ii) use and perform any method, process, and/or services, and (iii) otherwise practice any invention in any manner, such that Azure has full right to enforce and/or sublicense the [‘129 Patent].'”
    Continue reading