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

Published on:

by

The parties filed opposing motions against each side’s expert witness over a dispute between the parties as to what the word “use” means. In its Markman order, the district court had construed the term “Internet Protocol network” (“an Internet Protocol network,” “network utilizing at least one Internet Protocol,” and “a network utilizing at least one Internet Protocol”) to mean “an untrusted network using any protocol of the Internet Protocol Suite including at least one of IP, TCP/IP, UDP/IP, HTTP, and HTTP/IP. . . .”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Defendants LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively, “LG”) filed a motion to clarify the district court’s order transferring the case to the district of New Jersey, seeking a ruling that the court’s deadlines were suspended in view of the transfer order. The district court had granted LG’s motion to transfer on § 1404(a) convenience grounds.

Prior to the transfer order, the district court had entered a scheduling order that set a number of deadlines through trial, including a deadline for LG’s Responsive Claim Construction brief. LG’s motion asked the court to find that the transfer order suspended all pending deadlines.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Meyer Products LLC (“Meyer Products” or “defendant”) filed a motion to stay the case pending an inter partes review. After the motion was filed, the court set a briefing schedule. As part of its standard operating procedure, the court entered a temporary stay of the proceeding until defendant’s motion could be decided on the merits.

In the middle of the briefing schedule and before plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for stay was due to be filed, plaintiff filed an “emergency” motion to lift the temporary stay.
Continue reading