Published on:

by

Invista North America S.A. R.L. (“Invistia”) filed a patent infringement action against M&G USA Corporation (“M&G”). As the case progressed toward trial, both parties exchanged expert reports on damages, which implicated the entire market value rule.

As explained by the Federal Circuit, the entire market value rule is derived from Supreme Court precedent requiring that the patentee ‘must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and unpatented features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative.’ Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., — F.3d. —, 2015 WL 1529181 at *11 (Fed. Cir. April 7, 2015).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR2014-01201, Patent Owner ThermoLife International, LLC sought discovery regarding whether Purus Labs, Inc., a company related to the Petitioner John’s Lone Star Distribution, Inc., should have been identified as a real party-in-interest. Specifically, the Patent Owner sought documents:

(1) “showing the corporate and management structure of Purus Labs, including any Lone Star personnel who participate in the management or corporate decision-making of Purus Labs,”

(2) “identifying the persons who provided direction to, or had the authority to provide direction to, Lone Star’s counsel in this IPR, including the persons who reviewed, or were given the opportunity to review, the papers filed in this IPR,” and
(3) “showing communications by or to directors, officers, or executives of Purus Labs and Lone Star regarding this IPR, including any Purus Labs Board minutes regarding such communications.”

As explained below, the Board ultimately granted limited documentary discovery of Petitioner on this issue, but denied for the time being any depositions.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. (“Good) and Defendant MobileIron, Inc. (“MobileIron”). Two months before the trial, MobileIron moved to dismiss the case based invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The court, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, found the claims in the patents may indeed be abstract. “In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101 bars any patent claim directed to an abstract idea unless the claim includes “additional features” that transform the idea into a patent eligible invention. At first glance, Alice would seem to pose serious problems for each of the claims of two patents Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. assert against Defendant MobileIron, Inc. United States Patent No. 7.907,386 appears directed to little more than the notion of enforcing rules. United States Patent No. 7,702,322 appears no less abstract in claiming a way of ensuring the compatibility of two items used together. In the absence of a transformation of these ideas, Good would appear to be the owner of two patents worth little more than the paper they are printed on.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Stoneeagle Services, Inc. (“Stoneeagle”) filed a motion seeking sanctions against Defendant Premier Healthcare Exchange, Inc. (“PHX”) for failing to provide a prepared corporate representative to testify pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In response to the motion, PHX did not dispute that its corporate representative was unable to respond to all of the questions posed to him during the deposition, but instead asserted that the notice of deposition contained forty-five deposition topics covering broad topics and, therefore, lacked specificity.

The district court first analyzed the requirement of Rule 30(b)(6), noting that the corporation’s obligation under Rule 30(b)(6) “does not mean that the witness can never answer that the corporation lacks knowledge of a certain fact.” New World Network Ltd. v. M/V Norwegian Sea, 2007 WL 1068124 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (“if a witness is not prepared to answer a slew of questions that are glaringly irrelevant to the claims or defenses in a case, a requesting party who seeks to compel or sanction a deponent for not knowing such answers will not be successful before the Court, and indeed may himself be sanctioned under Rule 37 if the Court finds that the questions were so improper and the party’s position substantial unjustified”).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

On October 13, 2014, The Brinkman Corporation filed a petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,381,712 directed to a barbecue grill that allows simultaneous gas grilling and charcoal-fueled grilling. A&J Manufacturing, the owner of the ‘712 patent, challenged Petitioner’s standing to file the IPR based on the fact that the Petition was filed more than one year after the Petitioner received a copy of the complaint filed in a district court alleging infringement of the ‘712 patent or, alternatively, that the Petition was filed more than one year after the service of an ITC Complaint alleging infringement of the ‘712 patent. The Board rejected the Petitioner’s arguments and held that the relevant start of the one year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is the date when the waiver of service of the complaint executed by the Petitioner was filed with the district court. Based on this date, the Petition was filed within the allotted time.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

America’s Collectibles Network (“ACN”) filed a patent infringement action in which it claimed to own U.S. Patent No. 8,370,211 (the “211 Patent”). It brought this action against the Genuine Gemstone Company (“Genuine Gemstone”). Genuine Gemstone filed a motion to dismiss contending that it is the rightful owner of the 211 Patent and that ACN lacks standing to assert infringement.

The district court explained the background facts as follows: “On June 18, 2010, The Colourful Company Group acquired Gems TV (UK) Ltd–the then owner of the 211 Patent–through a share purchase agreement. After the transaction was completed, Gems TV (UK)’s former director, Anthony Hillyer, signed a document purportedly assigning Gems TV (UK)’s interest in the patent to a US affiliate that was not part [of] the sale. ACN traces its chain of title back to that assignment. If the assignment was valid, as ACN contends, then ACN is the rightful owner of the 211 Patent, and this suit may proceed. On the other hand, if the assignment was invalid as the defendant claims, then ACN is not the rightful owner of the 211 Patent, and it lacks standing to assert its infringement claim.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR2014-00727, Petitioner C&D Zodiac, Inc. seeks review of U.S. Patent No. 8,590,838 owned by B/E Aerospace, Inc. The ‘838 patent relates to a “spacewall” lavatory. In connection with the IPR proceeding, the Petitioner sought, as “Routine Discovery,” documents that it contends are inconsistent with positions the Patent Owner has advanced in the IPR. The Board granted the discovery over the Patent Owner’s opposition.

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii), “[u]nless previously served, a party must serve relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding concurrent with the filing of the documents or things that contains the inconsistency.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corp.’s
(collectively, “Fairchild”) moved in limine to preclude any reference to any pending reexamination proceeding or any completed reexamination proceeding of any asserted patent. Defendant Power Integrations, Inc. (“PI”) asserted that the fact the PTO finally rejected all asserted claims of the patent “is central to the ‘specific intent’ element (or the lack thereof) of Fairchild’s inducement claim” and also negated Fairchild’s proof of intent with respect to willful infringement.

The district court disagreed with PI. Noting that the Federal Circuit “has often warned of the limited value of actions by the PTO when used for” the purpose of “negating the requisite intent for inducement,” the district court stated that the “[t]he pending reexamination of Fairchild’s asserted patent is not final, as Fairchild has appellate rights. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the limited probative value of evidence of the reexamination’ is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Fairchild, especially the risk of confusion and the need to educate jurors on administrative proceedings governed by different standards and on the potential for reversal of the PTO on appeal.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) filed a complaint against American Technical Ceramics Corp. (“ATC”) asserting a claim for patent infringement. ATC filed a motion to stay the case pending PTO review of the patent-in-suit. Presidio opposed ATC’s motion to stay.

The district court began its analysis of the motion by noting that “this is not the first time that ATC has sought reexamination of the ‘356 patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). On July 23, 2009, ATC filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the ‘356 patent with the PTO seeking PTO review of claims 1-5, 16, 18, and 19. On July 2, 2010, ATC filed a second request for ex parte reexamination of the ‘356 patent with the PTO seeking review of the same claims. After reviewing ATC’s requests for reexamination, the PTO confirmed the patentability of claims 1-5, 16, 18, and 19.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the district court adopted a specialized scheduling order that was based on local patent rules in other districts, the plaintiffs served detailed infringement contentions and the defendant served detailed invalidity contentions early in the case. The parties could only amend the contentions for “good cause.” As the case progressed toward trial, the parties moved to strike various portions of the opposing party’s expert reports arguing that certain references and/or theories were not properly disclosed in the contentions.
Continue reading