Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Published on:

by

Defendant Extended Disc North America, Inc. (“EDNA”) filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, and, alternatively, a motion to dismiss against plaintiff Target Training International, Ltd.’s (“TTI”). TTI had filed its complaint for patent infringement against EDNA on September 17, 2010, alleging that EDNA directly infringed at least Claim 1 of the patent-in-suit by performing the methods claimed in the patent and by using or selling services that use the methods claimed in the patent.

Extended DISC International, Ltd. (“EDI”) filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”). EDNA moved to stay the case pending the outcome of the reexamination. The court initially denied the motion to stay. On January 6, 2012, the PTO issued a final office action rejecting all of the claims in the patent-in-suit. The court subsequently issued an order staying the case until the PTO concluded reexamination and a certificate of reexamination was issued.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the plaintiff Cordelia Lighting, Inc. (“Cordelia”) obtained a preliminary injunction against Zhejiang Yankon Grp. (“Yankon”), Cordelia sought to add certain retailers to the injunction. Cordelia owns U.S. Patent No. 8,474,204 (“the ‘204 Patent”), which is entitled “Recessed LED Lighting Fixture” and describes a fixture designed to hold an LED light bulb. Cordelia alleged that Yankon infringed the ‘204 Patent by making and selling a product called the “Utilitec Pro LED Recessed Retrofit Downlight” Yankon sells these products to Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s”).

In its effort to add Lowe’s to the injunction, Cordelia argued that Cordelia first argued that Lowe’s should be enjoined because it is in “active concert or participation” with Yankon. The district court explained that “[s]ignificant to the analysis here, ‘[a]ctions that aid and abet in violating the injunction must occur after the injunction is imposed for the purposes of Rule 65(d)(2)(C).’ Blockowicz v. Williams, 630 F.3d 563, 568 (7th Cir. 2010). It is undisputed that Yankon manufactures the Accused Products in China and then sells them to Lowe’s, freight on board, in China. (See Declaration of Stephen Lobbin, Doc. No. 107-1, Ex. E (Deposition of Kevin Zhao at 36:15¬37:2).) In other words, once Yankon sells a unit of product to Lowe’s, Yankon receives payment and no longer has any involvement with the end sales of the products to consumers. The Injunction Order prevents Yankon from making, selling, or importing the Accused Products. (Injunction Order at 14.) To be properly subject to the Injunction Order, Lowe’s would have to aid or abet, or be a privy to, Yankon taking such actions. But, Lowe’s fulfills neither requirement; it is hoping to sell off its own accumulated inventory of the Accused Products. Lowe’s has already purchased this inventory, and is not continuing to purchase Accused Products from Yankon (which would clearly constitute a violation of the Injunction Order).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendants filed a motion to compel Adaptix to re-produce documents that Adaptix had clawed back on the grounds of privilege. Adaptix had early produced the documents in several productions. The Defendants argued in the motion that even if Adaptix could demonstrate the documents are privileged, Adaptix waived the privilege because Defendants had notified Adaptix that they were relying on the documents at least nine months before Adaptix sent its clawback letter. Defendants pointed out that they had relied on information disclosed in the documents in depositions, expert reports, and briefing, all without any objection from Adaptix.

In response, Adaptix asserted that its data vendor erroneously produced the documents to Defendants without Adaptix knowledge even though they had been properly tagged as privileged. Adaptix also asserted that the documents fell within the protections of the attorney client work product doctrine because they pertained to testing that was performed for purposes of litigation at the direction of Adaptix’s attorneys. Adaptix then argued that it was only in March of 2015 that it “eventually realized the error of Defendants’ access to the documents at issue and promptly sent a letter clawing them back.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendant Murphy USA Inc. (“Murphy”) filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to certain claim U.S. Patent No. 6,076,071 (“the ‘071 Patent”) and one claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,513,016 (“the ‘016 Patent”) on the grounds that the patents are directed to non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101. In its motion, Murphy contended that “[t]he Asserted Claims, directed to an ‘automated product pricing system,’ cover nothing more than the abstract idea of changing prices from a central location using known electronic components, and are not patent-eligible under § 101.” Murphy also presented a chart of one of the claims to demonstrate why each discrete claimed “principle” is purportedly accomplished in a conventional manner.

The district court began its analysis by noting that”[p]atent claims enjoy a presumption of validity. 35 U.S.C. § 282. Beyond listing the claimed elements in a column entitled ‘Abstract Commercial Principle,’ Defendant has failed to articulate convincingly why it believes the ‘automated product pricing system’ of the Asserted Claims is considered abstract under the law. By evaluating Claim 24 of the ‘071 Patent as a whole, the court concludes the Asserted Claims are not abstract under the law.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After an appeal to the Federal Circuit, Defendant Arthrex, Inc. (“Arthrex”) filed a motion to reopen the judgment under FRCP 60(b). Arthrex premised its motion on the argument that the judgment should be reopened in light of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2015).

Plaintiffs Smith & Nephew, Inc. and John Hayhurst (collectively “S&N”) had appealed the district court’s decision to grant Arthrex’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. As set forth by the district court, under the case law in effect at the time of the appellate decision, the Federal Circuit reviewed all aspects of the district court’s claim construction de novo. The Federal Circuit ultimately reversed the decision granting Arthrex’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendant Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) filed a motion to compel plaintiff Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC (“Cascades”) to produce additional documents and to require its trial counsel to appear for a deposition. Samsung moved to compel the deposition of Cascade’s trial counsel based on the argument that Cascades’s principal, Anthony Brown, had communicated with the trial counsel (Mr. Niro) regarding licensing and settlement negotiations.

The district court agreed that “[b]ased on the record before the Court, it is clear that Mr. Niro discussed with Brown facts and strategy for Brown’s use during licensing and settlement negotiations and also suggested appropriate outcomes.” But the district court found that this was not surprising as “[ll]awyers representing clients involved in contract or settlement negotiations do that every day. Doing so does not make the lawyer a witness in resulting litigation.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Apple filed a motion to compel discovery from Farstone Technology, Inc. (“Farstone”) by way of a Joint Stipulation as required by the court’s local rules. After the court reviewed the joint stipulation, it found that there were significant problems and that too many disputes remained for the court to resolve.

As a result, the court concluded that the meet and confer process had failed that the parties had not complied with Local Rule 37-1. “After reading the Joint Stipulation, the Court cannot but conclude that the meet and confer process has failed. There are far too many disputed issues. Both sides are not being as reasonable and flexible as they should be and as the Local Rules contemplate. Specifically, Local Rule 37-1 requires counsel to ‘confer in a good faith effort to eliminate the necessity for hearing the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible.’ (Emphasis added.)”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between Natural Chemistry LP and Orenda Technologies, Inc. (“Orenda”), Orenda’s counsel filed a notice of vacation designation, which the district court characterized as a notice of unavailability.

In considering the notice, the district court began by noting that “[t]he rules of this Court do not provide for filing a Notice of Unavailability as a method to avoid abiding by deadlines and schedules established by the Court or to extend the time for responding to motions.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR2015-00821, Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., sought to join its Petition with a recently initiated IPR proceeding involving the same patent, parties, and counsel. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641, is directed to a music enabled communication system. Specifically, Petitioner requested inter partes review of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 of the ‘641 patent using two new references, Ushiroda and Bork, in combination with references Ito, Haartsen, Rydbeck, Nokia, and Galensky, previously relied upon in IPR2014-01181. Pet. 14-46; Motion for Joinder 2-3. The Petitioner conceded that, absent joinder, the institution of inter partes review would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the petition was filed more than 1 year after the date on which it had been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘641 patent.

As explained below, the Board exercised its discretion to deny the Petitioner’s motion finding that Petitioner had not provided sufficient justification for the delay in asserting the new grounds of invalidity in the current petition. As such, the Petition was merely an attempt for the Petitioner to obtain a “second bite at the apple,” which runs contrary to the Board’s mandate to provide just, speedy, and an inexpensive resolution of the proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Invista North America S.A. R.L. (“Invistia”) filed a patent infringement action against M&G USA Corporation (“M&G”). As the case progressed toward trial, both parties exchanged expert reports on damages, which implicated the entire market value rule.

As explained by the Federal Circuit, the entire market value rule is derived from Supreme Court precedent requiring that the patentee ‘must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and unpatented features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative.’ Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., — F.3d. —, 2015 WL 1529181 at *11 (Fed. Cir. April 7, 2015).
Continue reading