Published on:

by

Plaintiff Better Mouse Company’s (“Better Mouse”) filed a motion to strike portions of the rebuttal expert report and exclude testimony of Richard Eichmann. Better Mouse asserted that the district court should exclude Mr. Eichmann’s testimony stating that he determined the value of U.S. Patent No. 7,532,200 (the Asserted Patent or ‘200 patent) using forward citation analysis. Better Mouse argued that Mr. Eichmann’s forward citation analysis is flawed because (1) “he failed to count citations to counterpart patents and applications, which share an identical or very similar disclosure”; and (2) “he failed to account for patent families, which are linked either directly or indirectly by a priority document and thus may also disclose the same idea as the related ‘Comparable Patent.'”

Better Mouse asserted that “[t]he Court should strike Mr. Eichmann’s forward citation count because it ignores citations to related patents that disclose the same technology, thereby grossly undercounting the number of relevant forward citations.” Plaintiff argued that the district court should follow Oracle, where the Northern District of California held “that failing to include citation counts to patents (in that case, predecessors to a reissue patent) that have ‘the same specification and drawings’ was a fatal flaw in [an] expert’s forward citation count.” (Dkt. No. 226 at 4 (citing Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2012 WL 877125 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2012).)”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Advanced Transit Dynamics, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “ATD”) filed an ex parte application for a judgment of civil contempt against Defendant Ridge Corporation’s (“Defendant” or “Ridge”) for allegedly violating of the district court’s Modified Preliminary Injunction Order (“Order”). In its ex parte application, ATD asserted that Defendant’s repair and support of accused devices sold before the issuance of the Order constitute infringement and violate the Order.

As explained by the district court, before the effective date of the preliminary injunction, Ridge had sold hundreds of GreenTail devices. Ridge claimed that repairs and replacement parts are necessary to maintain the safe use of the devices. Ridge also asserted that it provides only unpatented parts and services and does not charge for them. On October 22, 2015, Ridge notified ATD that it interpreted the Order to permit Ridge to repair and support GreenTail devices sold before September 29, 2015. ATD disagreed with the interpretation and refused to consent to Ridge’s repair or support of the GreenTail devices.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiffs, Chrimar Systems, Inc. and Chrimar Holding Company, LLC (“Chrimar”), filed a motion to reconsider the district court’s order granting Ruckus Wireless, Inc.’s (“Ruckus”) motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. In the motion to reconsider, Chrimar requested that the district court modify its transfer order to order transfer effective upon the entry of the district court’s claim construction order.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The defendants filed a motion for leave to have the forensic expert report of Curtis Rose considered as affirmative evidence. The defendants timely served Rose’s expert rebuttal report but sought to use his opinions as affirmative evidence, despite missing the deadline for doing so. According to defendants’ motion, the Rose rebuttal report analyzes “the metadata embedded within files provided to Garmin by Mark W. Atherton, which discuss using a downwardly-directed scanning sonar beam to image underwater features.” Defendants argued that, with such short notice, they could not meet the deadline but that they were able to produce to plaintiffs the files in their possession.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Prism brought suit against Sprint alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,127,345 and 8,387,155 (the “Asserted Patents”). After the jury returned a $30 million award in favor of Prism, Prism filed a motion for an accounting and ongoing royalties. Prism requested an accounting for Sprint’s infringement after 2014 through the entry of judgment and to have a royalty set for ongoing infringement through the life of the Asserted Patents.

Sprint opposed the motion by asserting that both an accounting and ongoing royalties were improper because the jury instructions provided Prism compensation for past, present, and ongoing infringement. Prism responded that an accounting and ongoing royalties would grant Prism complete relief from Sprint’s infringement of the Asserted Patents.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff eDekka LLC (“eDekka”) sued a large number of defendants in Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,674 (“the ‘674 Patent”) titled “Random Access Information Retrieval Utilizing User Defined Labels.” As explained by the district court, the ‘674 Patent relates to storing and labeling information and discloses a preferred embodiment that includes a cassette tape recorder with multiple buttons, a microphone, and a speaker. The majority of eDekka’s suits stemming from the ‘674 Patent target online retailers that offer a shopping cart feature on their e-commerce websites. It is this shopping cart functionality that eDekka alleges infringes the ‘674 Patent.

Numerous defendants filed motions to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101, contending that the ‘674 Patent was directed to unpatentable subject matter under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The district court granted defendants’ motions and held that the claims of the ‘674 Patent were patent-ineligible under § 101. Defendants then filed a motion asking the district court to find the cases “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Adidas AG (“Adidas”), filed a patent infringement action against Under Armour, Inc. (“Under Armour”) and MapMyFitness, Inc. (“MapMyFitness”) alleging that they infringed over a dozen patents. After Under Armour and MapMyFitness filed answers and counterclaims, the district court held a Markman Hearing and issued a claim construction order.

After the claim construction order, the defendants filed a motion to modify the district court’s claim construction. The defendants requested that the district court modify its construction of the term “route path” based on actions taken by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Prior to the claim construction order, Under Armour filed a Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of one of the patents-in-suit.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Moblize contended that TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc (“TDE”) either knew or should have known that its motion for preliminary injunction was meritless and that it was brought for the improper purpose of harassing Moblize. In its motion, Moblize asserted that “TDE’s actions were plainly designed to increase the cost of litigation for Moblize, arguing that (1) TDE purposefully brought the case in an inconvenient forum, the Eastern District of Texas; (2) TDE issued a press release along with service of process in a calculated effort to harm Moblize and induce Moblize to settle; (3) TDE improperly relied on biased expert witnesses; and (4) TDE brought irrelevant third-party discovery to harass Moblize.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action, alleging that Defendant B2B Supply and Defendant Jerrell P. Squyres (hereinafter “Defendants”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,731,462 (the ‘462 patent). Toward the end of discovery, the Defendants served written discovery and filed a motion seeking to extend the discovery deadline by 50 days to complete fact discovery and compelling Plaintiff to produce all responsive documents, certify that its production is complete, produce witnesses for deposition, and answer Defendants’ interrogatories.

In support of the motion, Defendants argued that an extension was necessary because Plaintiff had withheld documents from production and had otherwise failed to cooperate with discovery. As explained by the district court, the Defendants argued they were unable to complete discovery because Plaintiff withheld production, provided deficient respondes to discovery, and failed to certify that it had produced all responsive documents, which prevented Defendants from using the information to serve additional written discovery requests and third party subpoenas. Plaintiff responded that it timely served its responses and objections to Defendants’ discovery requests and that it had been diligent in searching for responsive documents.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff filed a motion for discovery sanctions. The plaintiff argued in its motion that defendant failed to comply with the district court’s October 7, 2015 oral discovery order and related text-only order, in which the district court apparently warned the defendant that failure to comply would result in sanctions.
Continue reading