Published on:

by

The district court had previously held that no reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff Corning Optical Communications Wireless LTD (“Corning”) marked its products or otherwise complied with the marking requirements Section 287(a) of the Patent Act. Corning requested that the district court reconsider its ruling.

The district court noted that defendants had produced unrebutted evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment that “[a] sale of an accused distributed antenna system to an American end customer starts with the customer issuing a purchase order to Corning’s American parent. The parent company then issues a purchase order to Corning, and Corning in turn issues another purchase order to a third-party manufacturer. The manufacturer ships the product directly to the end customer in the United States. Corning takes title to a product when it leaves the manufacturer and retains it until it reaches the end customer. Immediately before title transfers to the customer, Corning’s American parent takes ‘flash title,’ temporary legal ownership that lasts only a split second.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Defendant R/X Automation Solutions filed a motion in limine to exclude one of plaintiff’s experts. The district court concluded that the motion was an untimely Daubert motion because the district court had set a deadline for dispositive motions and Daubert motions.

The district court was not impressed with the excuse for the late filing. “Defendant’s excuse that it could not have known of the bases for the motion until after it took depositions of the experts is lame. Defendant had Dr. Derby’s report, for example, before the due date for Daubert motions. Everything that the ‘motion in limine’ complains of with respect to Dr. Derby is plain to see on the face of his report.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiffs filed motions in limine to exclude 15 prior art references that defendants intend to use to show the state of the art pertinent to the patents-in-suit. Defendants included the 15 references on a recent notice, but the references were not included on defendants’ third (and final) amended invalidity contentions.

As explained by the district court, “Defendants intone the wearying refrain that granting the motion would constitute ‘reversible error,’ because they are absolutely entitled to show the state of the art. Defendants are correct that the obviousness analysis is expansive and flexible, and that references like the ones at issue now might be relevant to show what was generally known in the art at the time of the invention. But defendants miss the point, which is not whether the 15 references are relevant. The issue is whether the 15 references were properly disclosed in this case.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiffs, Fieldturf USA and Tarkett Inc. (collectively, “Fieldturf”) filed a patent infringement action against Astroturf LLC (“Astroturf”). In defense, Astroturf intended to present expert testimony on anticipation showing that certain Fieldturf technical information predated the patent-in-suit.

Based on the technical information, Astroturf’s expert created replicas of the fields and he then used multiple techniques to measure the infill depth. Before trial, Fieldturf filed a motion in limine that sought to exclude the replicas, contending that Astroturf made most of the decisions regarding the replicas’ size and materials, and directly participated in the replicas’ creation. Fieldturf also argued that the replicas did not control for multiple factors — such as the weight and density of the carpet, whether the sand and rubber was laid in separate layers or as a mixture, the size of rubber particles, and humidity — that impact the infill depth.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The district court briefly summarized this patent infringement action that it found frivolous as follows: “In the 1990’s, Segan invented a system for people to browse the Internet. Today, Zynga makes video games that people can play while on Facebook. People don’t browse the Internet while playing Zynga games on Facebook. But Segan sued Zynga for patent infringement. Segan lost at summary judgment, because no reasonable juror could conclude that Zynga’s games infringe Segan’s patent.”

The district court then asked two questions: (1) was “this an “exceptional case” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, such that Segan should pay Zynga for its attorneys’ fees?” and (2) should the law firm representing Segan “be sanctioned under Rule 11 for filing and pursuing a frivolous lawsuit?”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The defendants filed a motion to stay discovery until the district court ruled upon its motion to dismiss pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. In their motion to stay, Defendants asserted that its motion to stay discovery should be granted because it is a dispositive motion to dismiss that is likely to be granted, which would render any discovery conducted unnecessary and wasteful.

Plaintiff argued in opposition to the motion to stay that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss is not likely to be granted and also that the parties previously agreed that no Rule 12 motion concerning the pleadings would delay the commencement or conducting of discovery. Plaintiff also argued that it has incurred significant expenses in the litigation and that a stay of discovery would be prejudicial and harmful.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson’s (“Ericsson”) filed a motion to compel discovery of source code and technical documents, pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3-4 in the Eastern District of Texas. As explained by the district court, Patent Local Rule 3-4 requires the party opposing a claim of infringement to produce or make available “[s]ource code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent claimant in its P. R. 3-1(c) chart.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In consolidated patent infringement actions between Arctic Cat and Polaris, Artic Cat filed four petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of two patents asserted by Polaris. Three days after the IPRs were filed, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the consolidated cases given Arctic Cat’s pending IPR petitions.

On September 1, 2015, the district court denied the parties’ request to stay. In response to the district court’s order, the parties submitted a joint letter seeking reconsideration of the order denying a stay of the consolidated cases.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs filed an action defendants, Bouncing Angels, Inc. for, among other things, patent and copyright infringement. Plaintiffs successfully moved the district court to allow them to amend the complaint to add the owner of defendant Bouncing Angels, Inc., as a defendant based on financial evidence they discovered that could support an argument in favor of piercing the corporate veil. Discovery was extended “for the limited purpose of allowing discovery and dispositive motions only on issues relating to piercing the corporate veil.” The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery on that issue.

As explained by the court, “[t]he discovery requests at issue in the Motion are all directed at defendant Bouncing Angels, and consist of document requests, requests for admissions, and an interrogatory. The discovery seeks Bouncing Angels’ tax returns and annual statements for a number of years, loan and security documents relating to a line of credit, information as to this defendant’s working capital, and whether Bouncing Angels ever conducted an independent audit.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The district court had previously ordered plaintiffs to produce certain documents to the extent that documents containing communications between plaintiff and its non-attorney patent agents were not subject to the attorney-client privilege. The district court ordered a one-week stay to allow the filing of any appeal. Rather than producing the documents in compliance with the order, the plaintiffs filed a petition for Writ of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The district court elected to stay plaintiffs’ production “pending disposition of the petition or other order of the Court of Appeals” and that production remained stayed pending resolution by the Federal Circuit. “A failure to stay the production would have forced the Circuit to consider an emergency motion to stay. Plaintiffs knew that their decision to forego compliance with the discovery order endangered the trial date.”
Continue reading