Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action pending in a multi-district litigation, one of the defendants moved the district court for an order allowing the defendant to destroy old backup tapes. Defendant ICM, Inc. (“ICM”) moved for an order permitting it to destroy old backup tapes that contain electronic business information of ICM for the years 2003 through 2009.
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Discovery
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement suit, Defendants and Counterclaimants James Stephens and Spectrum Laboratories, LLC (“Spectrum”) moved to strike the report of Plaintiff’s damages expert, Robert Taylor. Spectrum argued that the Plaintiff did not designate Mr. Taylor as an expert before the expert designation deadlines set by the district court expired. Spectrum also contended that the plaintiff violated a protective order by providing Taylor with information designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order.

The Plaintiff conceded that it failed to identify Taylor prior to the district court’s deadline, but contended that the oversight was inadvertent. The Plaintiff also argued that Taylor’s report was timely filed before the expert report cutoff date and that Taylor was required to execute the Acknowledgment accompanying the protective order prior to receipt of any information marked confidential or attorney’s eyes only.
Continue reading

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

by

In this patent infringement action, Slide Fire Solutions, LP (“Slide Fire”) moved to compel discovery responses from Bump Fire Systems (“Bump Fire”). Bump Fire also requested a protective order to prevent the disclosure of certain discovery, including sensitive trade secrets and financial information.

With respect to the financial information, the court analyzed the motion to compel under the new proportionality standards set for in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26: The party seeking discovery, to prevail on a motion to compel or resist a motion for protective order, may well need to make its own showing of many or all of the proportionality factors, including the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, in opposition to the resisting party’s showing. And the party seeking discovery is required to comply with Rule 26(b)(1)’s proportionality limits on discovery requests; is subject to Rule 26(g)(1)’s requirement to certify “that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry: … (B) with respect to a discovery request…, it is: (i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law; (ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action”; and faces Rule 26(g)(3) sanctions “[i]f a certification violates this rule without substantial justification.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(g)(1)(B), 26(g)(3); see generally Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466, 475-77, 493¬95 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
Continue reading

by
Posted in: Discovery
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff asserted claims from two different patents against Apple. Apple filed an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) and moved to stay the case pending the IPR.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

My partner, Ryan Mauck, and I will be hosting a one-hour webinar on litigating indemnity provisions, which can often arise in the context of patent litigation. The webinar, taking place on March 16, is free of charge and you are invited to attend. Information about the webinar and a link to the registration page are below. – Stan Gibson

Litigating Indemnity Provisions – The Nuts and Bolts of Indemnification

Date and Time: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 | 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM PST

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

by

The plaintiff, Magna, filed a motion in limine to exclude references to Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings. The defendant, TRW, filed a response, arguing that evidence was relevant to multiple issues at trial, including, but not limited to, the history of the asserted patents, prosecution history estoppel, the scope of the claims and prior art, and willfulness.

TRW explained that while it did not intend to argue that the mere fact that the PTO instituted IPR proceedings is conclusive evidence that the asserted patents are invalid, TRW did plan to seek to admit evidence in the IPRs which constitutes the file histories of the patents, while avoiding the undue prejudice, confusion, and irrelevance of informing the jury about details about the IPR proceedings including outcomes.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for patent infringement, the defendants contended that they uncovered during discovery a series of e-mails demonstrating that in 2011, plaintiff engaged plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Alan Fisch, to negotiate the sale of its patent portfolio to third parties. Defendants subsequently moved to compel the deposition of Mr. Fisch after they took the deposition of plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the Defendants filed motions for partial summary judgment of invalidity with respect to two of the patents at issue in the case. The defendants argued that two district courts had already found the two patents at issue in the case patent ineligible under section 101 of the Patent Act.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Metaswitch moved to exclude evidence of copying from a patent infringement action filed against it by Genband. Genband asserted during the pretrial process that it was seeking to introduce evidence of copying as an indication of nonobviousness.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Omega Patents, LLC (“Omega”) filed a patent infringement action against CalAmp Corp. (“CalAmp”) asserting that CalAmp infringes the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,346,876 (“the ‘876 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,737,989 (“the ‘989 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,756,885 (“the ‘885 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,671,727 (“the ‘727 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,032,278 (“the ‘278 Patent”). The patents relate to control systems for vehicles with a “data communications bus.” Omega asserted that CalAmp’s devices are used to monitor particular vehicle characteristics and conditions and report vehicle information to an end user, thus infringing on the patents-in-suit. In particular, CalAmp advertises for sale the LMU-3000, LMU-3030, and LMU-3050 (the “Accused Devices”) which are described as full-featured tracking systems which “access vehicle diagnostic interface data, track vehicle speed and location, plus detect hard braking, cornering, or acceleration.”
Continue reading