Published on:

by

The court had previously stayed a cased pending between Smartflash LLC and Amazon and simultaneously declined to stay an earlier-filed case between Smartflash LLC and Apple, Inc. because the stay request came after a jury trial. The court was perplexed that despite Apple’s argument for a stay in the first case well after conclusion of a jury trial, Apple had “curiously not requested a stay in this case even though CBM review has been instituted on all but one of the asserted patents.”

The court then found that “[a]lthough the Court denied Apple’s motion to stay in the earlier Apple case, this case is procedurally more similar to the Amazon case. This case involves the same asserted patents at the Amazon case. As with Amazon, this case is in its very early stages; the court has not yet held a scheduling conference. Similarly, substantial opportunities remain for cost-savings and issue simplification.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) filed a motion to stay pending inter partes review” (“IPR”) after Boeing had requested that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) conduct an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618 (“the ‘618 patent”). Boeing argued that the asserted claims of the ‘618 patent were unpatentable and sought a stay of the case until the PTO decided whether to accept review and determines the patentability of the challenged claims.

The district court noted that it has broad discretion to manage its docket, including the inherent power to grant a stay pending agency review. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 549 F.3d 842, 849 (Fed. Cir. 2008). When determining whether to grant a stay, courts generally consider three factors: 1) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question; 2) the stage of litigation, i.e., whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; and 3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice the non-moving party. Zillow, Inc. v. Trulia, Inc., C12-1549JLR, 2013 WL 5530573, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 7, 2013); Nat’l Prods., Inc. v. Gamber-Johnson LLC, C12-840RSL, 2012 WL 3527938, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 14, 2012).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC (“Mobile”) filed a patent infringement action against LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. (“LG”). As trial approached, LG filed a motion to disqualify Mobile’s infringement expert, Dr. Bims, on the grounds of conflict of interest arising from his retention by LG to serve as its expert in connection with two ITC proceedings in 2011-2012.

LG asserted that the ITC proceedings related to the same products accused by Mobile in this case. Mobile responded by arguing that Dr. Bims’ contract with LG expired in February 2015, before his retention by Mobile in March 2015 and that the subject of his work during the ITC proceedings did not relate to his current work for Mobile in this case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court, the defendant filed a motion to stay the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of the petition for writ of certiorari. As explained by the district court, “[t]his case for patent infringement is back in this court on remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp., 773 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The question before the court is whether the case should be stayed while defendants’ petition for a writ of certiorari is pending before the Supreme Court.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Lanard Toys Limited (“Lanard”) filed a patent infringement action against Toys “R” US. Lanard subsequently filed a four-count Amended Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury, both of which were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. After the amend complaint was filed, the case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After a jury returned a verdict against Apple, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The district court subsequently notified the parties pursuant to Rule 59(d) that it was considering granting a motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in Apple’s original motion.

During the trial and apparently at Apple’s request, the district court instructed the jury on the entire market value rule. Smartflash had argued that it did not employ the entire market value rule at trial and instead employed an apportionment analysis.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The district court had previously granted Defendant Respironics, Inc.’s
(“Respironics”) unopposed motion to stay the patent infringement action filed by the plaintiff, Zoll, pending an inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patent-in-suit, on which the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) had instituted review. When Respironics filed the motion to stay, it had assured the district court that the length of the stay would not exceed 18 months. Based on this representation, Zoll withdrew its prior opposition to the requested stay and, based largely on the lack of opposition, the district court granted the stay.

After the completion of the IPR proceeding, the PTO confirmed the patentability of Zoll’s patent claims. As explained by the district court, “Zoll now wishes to proceed with the litigation it filed more than 2 1/2 years ago, on December 27, 2012. Oddly, however, and in tension with its prior representations that it was only seeking a stay pending IPR, and that such a stay would not exceed 18 months, Respironics opposes lifting the stay.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Verify Smart Corp. (“Verify”) filed a patent infringement action against Bank of America, N.A. (“BoA”), alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 8,285,648 (“the ‘648 Patent”). As part of its complaint, Verify claimed to have all substantial rights through an exclusive license. BoA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), contending that Verify lacked standing.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff ACQIS, LLC (“ACQIS”) filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Defendant EMC Corporation (“EMC”) had infringed claims in 11 patents owned by ACQIS. Specifically, ACQIS alleged that 20 EMC computer storage products infringe 22 claims from these 11 patents, including EMC products for modular computer systems.

After the Eastern District of Texas transferred the case, EMC moved to stay the case pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has instituted IPRs for 2 of the 11 patents-in-suit, involving 3 of the 22 claims asserted against EMC.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff West View Research (“West View”) filed five separate patent infringement complaints on the same date against various automobile manufacturers. Each action asserted a combination of patents, all from the same patent family, for a total of eleven asserted patents. The district ourt consolidated the five for purposes of discovery and claim construction.

As part of the Case Management Order, the district court ordered West View to identify no more than seven claims from each patent to assert against the Defendants. For each asserted claim, the district court ordered West View to provide preliminary infringement contentions.
Continue reading