Published on:

by

The plaintiff, Samsung, filed a motion for an order regarding the presentation of evidence. Samsung’s proposal included a “six-stage” process for presenting the evidence. In support of the proposal, Samsung argued that the “six-stage” process would help the jury understand the complex issues it would need to decide. The defendant opposed the motion, asserting that Samsung’s proposal would not contribute to a better understanding of the complex issues for the jury.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff, Radware, planned to present damages theories in its closing argument seeking more than twice the damages that its retained expert on damages computed. The district court noted that “[w]hile expert testimony is not always required to prove damages, any damages theory must have evidentiary support. Radware had a duty to disclose its damages theories and evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and in response to F5’s discovery requests and this court’s orders. Radware attempted to do that by pointing to the calculations of its expert Mr. Malackowski. The permissible scope of Radware’s damages contentions at trial is thus limited by Radware’s pretrial disclosures–including Mr. Malackowski’s expert report–and, to the extent that the court allowed it, Mr. Malackowski’s revised report served on February 27, 2016.”
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Damages
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the defendants asked the district court to compel the plaintiffs to provide constructions for disputed claim terms identified by the parties under the Local Patent Rules. Defendants identified 8 claim terms that they contended require construction. For each term that the defendants identified, the plaintiffs offered “plain meaning” as their proposed construction and would not acknowledge whether defendants’ proposed construction of these terms is within the “plain meaning” asserted by plaintiffs.

As a result, defendants contended that plaintiffs’ assertion of “plain meaning” as their proposed construction of all disputed terms prejudices defendants and “prevents the Court from engaging in meaningful claim construction.” The plaintiffs responded by arguing that “plain and ordinary meaning” is a valid construction.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (“Metaswitch”) filed a motion for partial summary judgment to limit Genband US LLC’s (“Genband”) damages based on a failure to mark. In support of its motion, Metaswitch argued that partial summary judgment should be granted because: (1) Genband makes and sells products that practice the patents-in-suit, (2) Genband has not marked those products with the patent numbers, (3) these unmarked products have been sold throughout the damages period; and (4) Genband has no evidence that Metaswitch had pre-suit notice of the patents-in-suit.

Genband’s opposition did not contest any of these facts. Instead, Genband argued that Metaswitch cannot meet its summary judgment burden because Metaswitch contended that Genband does not practice the patents-in-suit. In support of this position, Genband cited to the report of Metaswitch’s expert that Metaswitch hotly contests Genband’s assertion that it practices the patents-in-suit. As a result, Genband argued there is a genuine fact dispute because a reasonable jury could credit Metaswitch’s evidence and conclude that Genband does not practice the patents-in-suit.
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Damages
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

As the re-trial in the Oracle v. Google case approaches, both parties requested an opportunity to use a jury questionnaire followed by a limited, one hour oral voir dire. The district court reviewed the proposed questionnaire and found that it would not save time and was likely suggested to permit the parties to learn the jurors names and addresses in order to perform Internet research on the backgrounds of the prospective jurors.

The district court explained that “[t]he joint questionnaire and procedure proposed by counsel, however, will not save time. At a minimum, it will add an extra day to the jury-selection procedure while the parties’ neutral vendor collects, copies, and distributes the responses. The proposed questionnaire, moreover, includes vague questions that seem more likely to generate vague answers than accurate answers, which will lead to the need for verbal follow-up and consume even more time.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs Equistar Chemicals, LP and MSI Technology, LLC accused Westlake Chemical Corporation (“Westlake”) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,064,163. The asserted patent relates to a method of making polyolefin-based adhesive resins used for bonding to or bonding together polyolefins and polar materials. Westlake retained Christopher Bakewell as a damages expert, and Plaintiffs asserted that Bakewell relies on information that was not produced during discovery in his expert report, particularly on pound estimates for PE processing. Plaintiffs contended that Bakewell’s report improperly relie upon private conversations concerning non-infringing alternative costs.
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Damages
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The court explained the facts as follows: The defendant, CrestaTech, was founded by Mihai Murgulescu and George Haber in 2005. Its initial products included a receiver for satellite radio and a television platform. CrestaTech entered the television tuner market in September 2011, when it acquired the assets of Xceive Inc., a company developing and selling television tuners. Among the assets that CrestaTech acquired was the XC5000 series of television tuner products–now the accused products in this suit–which Xceive had developed prior to its acquisition in September 2011. Xceive had been selling the XC5000 since at least January 2007.

The plaintiff, Silicon Labs, began in Austin, Texas, in 1996. In the twenty years since, the company has developed and sold a variety of silicon-based TV tuners, with many name-brand TV sets now Xceive representing that it intended to acquire or merge with Xceive. Silicon Labs performed due diligence in evaluating Xceive and the now-accused products. As part of this process, Silicon Labs and its CEO, Tyson Tuttle, executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement and were provided with a set of Xceive confidential and proprietary documents and items. Among those items was an Evaluation Kit for the XC5000, including a number of XC5000 evaluation boards, on which Silicon Labs performed “extensive tests.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) filed two declaratory judgment actions against Sprint seeking to invalidate six Sprint patents and seeking a declaration of non-infringement of seven Sprint patents. Cisco is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Sprint is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

I am pleased to be a panel member at the Strafford webinar described below. The webinar promises to be informative – I hope you will consider joining us. – Stan Gibson

Venue Transfer Strategies in Patent Litigation – How Will TC Heartland Change the Landscape? Determining Whether and When to File Motions to Transfer Amid Uncertainty, Assessing the Court’s Questions in TC Heartland

This 90-minute CLE webinar will provide guidance to patent counsel for developing venue transfer strategies in patent cases. The panel will discuss recent §1404 trends and key considerations that parties should weigh when forming a potential transfer strategy.

Continue reading
by
Posted in: Education
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the defendant’s damage expert. The motion sought to exclude portion of the defendant’s expert report on damages, in particular the “market share reasonable royalty analysis” which was based on licenses for the patents-in-suit.
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Damages
Published on:
Updated: