Published on:

by

Card-Monroe Corp. (“CMC”) manufactures tufting machines and equipment. CMC holds several patents that pertain to its machines and equipment. Tuftco Corp. (“Tuftco”) is a competitor of CMC, which also engages in the manufacture and sale of tufting machines. CMC filed a patent infringement action against Tuftco, and Tuftco subsequently filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the patent-in-suit. Tuftco then filed a Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review of Proceedings.

In their briefs on the motion to stay, the parties disagreed as to whether CMC would be unduly prejudiced by a stay of these proceedings. Tuftco argued that the “only potential basis for a claim of undue prejudice is the delay inherent to any stay of proceedings,” but CMC claimed that it would be prejudiced if the district court stayed these proceedings because the parties are direct competitors.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The plaintiff, U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (“USEI”), filed a patent infringement action against several defendants in the Eastern District of Texas. The district court then transferred the cases to the Northern District of California. While litigation in the Northern District of California proceeded, USEI filed another patent infringement case against Texas Instruments Incorporated (“TI”).

The TI case then proceeded with two jury trials. The first jury returned a verdict finding that the patents-in-suit (“Early Transmit Patents”) were not invalid. The second jury found that TI infringed the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No 5,434,872 and awarded USEI $3,000,000.00 in damages. After the district court rejected TI’s equitable defense of laches, the district court entered a Final Judgment in the case, but the Final Judgment “specifically noted that the Court was still considering the issues raised in the parties’ post-verdict briefing.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff NOV filed a patent infringement action asserting that defendant Omron had infringed NOV’s patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,474,142 or the ‘142 Patent). Specifically, NOV alleged Omron’s oil rig automation control system has an automatic driller function that infringes one or more claims of the ‘142 Patent.

After years of litigation, Omron filed dispositive motions asserting lack of standing, no infringement and invalidity of the ‘142 Patent. The district court first found that NOV had no standing to assert the patent as the owner of the patent had only “agreed to assign” the patent. “In sum, the prevailing Federal Circuit case law makes clear the “agrees to assign” language in the ACA was not a present assignment. The ACA further indicates Varco, L.P. was to issue a separate assignment document, but there is no such piece of paper. Because NOV is unable to show the ACA was a present assignment of assets, the Court finds, on this ground alone, NOV has failed to satisfy its burden of proving ownership and, consequently, standing to sue.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The Plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking the district court to preclude the Defendant from offering at trial any testimony regarding the Defendant’s opinion of counsel defense that was not disclosed during discovery. As explained by the district court, the Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendant selectively produced certain documents pertaining to the Defendant’s opinion of counsel defense and instructed witnesses not to testify on matters concerning the Defendant’s investigation into the Plaintiff’s allegations of patent infringement and theft of trade secrets.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Barco filed a patent infringement action in September 2011 against Defendants Eizo Nanao Corporation and Eizo Nanao Technologies, Inc. (“Eizo”), alleging that Eizo infringed various claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,639,849 (the ‘849 patent). After Barco filed a reissue application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”), in which it added seventy-eight new claims to the original thirty-seven claims of the ‘849 patent, the district court stayed the action.

Eizo subsequently filed an inter partes reexamination, seeking to reexamine the original thirty-seven claims of the ‘849 patent and the district court continued the stay even though the patent was reissued by the PTO as RE43,707 (the ‘707 patent), because the inter partes reexamination proceedings initiated by Eizo were still pending before the PTO.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Rosebud filed a patent infringement action Adobe and Adobe moved for summary judgment arguing that Rosebud had no remedy for its patent against Adobe. Adobe based its summary judgment motion on the argument that the patent-in-suit did not issue until after Adobe’s accused product was discontinued.

As set out by the district court, the parties did not dispute that the accused feature of Adobe’s product (Collaborate Live) was discontinued and could not have been used after January 2013. As the ‘280 patent issued on November 5, 2013, Rosebud could not recover post-issuance damages. Instead, Rosebud sought to recover provisional remedies under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d), based on the publication of the ‘280 patent application on December 29, 2011, which requires the defendant to have actual knowledge of the published patent application.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The defendant, Samsung, had previously filed IPRs on several of plaintiff’s patents, which were granted and denied in part. After the plaintiff reduced its asserted claims to those that the PTO had declined to institute review, Samsung filed an additional IPR to challenging the asserted claims and moved to stay pending the new IPR.

In requesting the stay, Samsung argued that “the IPRs will address the validity of all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit” and “[c]onsidering the current status and likely disposition of each USPTO proceeding for the patents in suit, there is strong possibility that nearly all of Rembrandt’s infringement allegations will be moot.” The district court observed that the “simplification offered by Defendants is not likely based on the recent denials of IPR institutions.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

The district court had previously stayed the patent infringement action between Nidec Motor Corporation and Broad Ocean Motor pending the PTO’s decision on whether to institute an inter partes review on three of the patents-in-suit. After the PTO declined to institute review on one of the patents, the plaintiff moved to lift the stay on that patent.

As explained by the district court, “the parties notified the Court that, on January 21, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) instituted Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) against the ‘895 and ‘349 Patents but it denied institution against the ‘970 Patent. The parties state that they met and conferred on January 26, 2015, but the parties did not agree as to whether the Court should lift the stay at this time with respect to the ‘970 Patent.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-3657 (N.D. Cal.), MLC filed its lawsuit on August 12, 2014, accusing Micron of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 (“the ‘571 patent”). On October 15, 2014, Micron answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘571 patent. At the initial case management conference on November 21, 2014, the Court set a further case management conference for March 20, 2015, the tutorial hearing for June 10, 2015, and the claim construction hearing for June 17, 2015.

On December 24, 2014, Micron filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), challenging the patentability of at least each asserted claim of the ‘571 patent. The PTO accorded the IPR petition a filing date of December 24, 2014, and thus the PTO must issue a decision on whether to institute the IPR no later than June 24, 2015. On December 29, 2014, Micron filed its motion to stay pending the IPR. In its motion, Micron sought a stay through a final written decision of the IPR including any appeals to the Federal Circuit. MCL partially opposed only the portion of the stay beyond the final written decision of the PTO rather than after all appeals have been exhausted. MCL also argued that the case should not be stayed at this time until after the claim construction was completed.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Intellectual Ventures (“IV”) filed a motion to bifurcate and stay discovery of Symantec’s patent misuse defense. The district court agreed with Intellectual Ventures. “While the Court views IV’s motion as essentially two motions one to bifurcate for a separate trial, see F.R.C.P. 42(b), and one to stay discovery, to which the general stay factors may be pertinent, see, e.g., Apotex, Inc. v. Senju Pharm. Co., 921 F. Supp. 2d 308, 313-14 (D. Del. 2013) it finds that the circumstances do not warrant departure from the Federal Circuit’s general guidance that antitrust and related issues be bifurcated in patent cases, and further finds that judicial economy warrants staying discovery related to these issues. See In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F.2d 1077, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
Continue reading