Published on:

by

The defendants in this patent infringement action sought the production of certain billing statements of the law firm representing CleanTech. The defendants argued that the billing statements were discoverable based on their inequitable conduct defense because a witness was unable to recall why certain information was not disclosed to the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) during his deposition. Defendants asserted that the billing statements could supply the information the deponent was not able to recall.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After plaintiff, McAirlaids, requested the deposition of one of Kimberly-Clark’s (“K-C”) in-house litigation counsel, K-C filed a motion for a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to preclude the deposition of its in-house counsel, Vicki Margolis (“Margolis”), who is an active member of its trial team. Counsel for McAirlaids requested the deposition of Margolis largely because she sent and received indemnification correspondence with K-C’s manufacturer, Beijing Beishute (“BB”), which McAirlaids asserted was highly relevant to the case.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a CBM petition filed by petitioners PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Bancorp, the petitioners sought review of U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191, which claims a method of authenticating a web page. The petition challenged the validity of claims under Section 101, 103 and 112.

After finding that the ‘191 patent was a covered business method patent, the Board turned to the challenge under Section 101. Reciting the well-known categories of patentable subject matter under Section 101, including “process, machine, method of manufacture, or composition of matter,” the Board further explained that “[t]here are, however, three limited, judicially-created exceptions to the broad categories of patent-eligible subject in § 101: laws of nature; natural phenomena; and abstract ideas. Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).” Citing Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3222, the Board explained that this test for patent-eligible under § 101 is “not amenable to bright-line categorical rules.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Kaneka Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed a patent infringement against SKC Kolon PI, Inc. (“SKPI” or “Defendant”) and SKC, Inc. (“SKC America”). After the district court issued a scheduling order setting, among other things, a final day to amend pleadings, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend its first amended complaint on the final day and the district court granted leave to amend, permitting the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. The parties subsequently filed cross motions for summary judgment.

While the summary judgment motions were pending, Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to amend the operative complaint. Although Plaintiff’s first amended complaint stated claims of direct infringement against Defendant SKPI, the second amended complaint omitted those claims. In its motion for leave, Plaintiff contended it inadvertently deleted those claims and moved for leave to amend to reinsert them.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR proceeding involving Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive. Inc., the petitioner, Medtronic, file a petition seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 relating to a spinal implant and methods of spinal fusion using the implant. The petition was Medtronic’s third IPR petition challenging the validity of claims in the ‘156 patent. One of the two earlier petitions was granted while the other was denied. According to Medtronic, the instant petition “remedies the deficiencies of the [earlier denied] petition, and also adds new arguments and evidence as to the length disclosure of [prior art publication to Frey].”

In its preliminary response, the patent owner argued that the petition “is essentially a duplicate of its previously denied petition.” As summarized below, the Board agreed with the patent owner and denied Medtronic’s third challenge to the validity of claims of the ‘156 patent based on “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” presented in the earlier, denied petition.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Adobe filed a Daubert motion seeking to exclude the plaintiff’s damage expert largely based on VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 4548722 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2014). As explained by the district court, “Adobe does not seriously challenge Mr. Yurkerwich’s qualifications as an economist. Nor does it question the fundamental approach he has taken in arriving at an estimation of the value of the royalties lost to EveryScape as a result of the alleged infringement. The “hypothetical willing buyer-willing seller” model is a standard economic tool that has been used by economists and appraisers for decades in determining the estimated value of lost economic opportunities.”

Instead, Adobe challenged that “Mr. Yurkerwich has overvalued the revenue and royalty base apportionable to Vanishing Point by considering Vanishing Point as a whole rather than segregating the incremental value added to Photoshop by the accused Clone Brush (which EveryScape claims as its proprietary invention). Adobe relies specifically on VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 4548722, at *15-18 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 16, 2014), which holds that a damages expert must attempt to apportion value specifically to the infringing features of the contested product.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In IPR proceeding First Data Corporation v. Cardsoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC, the petitioner, First Data Corporation, attempted to file a petition on April 30, 2014 seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 6,934,945 assigned to Cardsoft (Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC. On May 20, 2014, the petitioner filed a corrected petition to address certain formatting issues, but, in doing so, also served the petition on the patent owner of record at the address listed in the USPTO PAIR records rather than the patent owner’s corporate address, the address where the original petition was served. On August 7, 2014, the patent owner filed its preliminary response, raising the defense that the petition was time barred under Section 315(b) because the real party in interest, VeriFone, was served with a complaint more than one year before the May 20, 2014 filing of the petition.

In 2008, the patent owner has sued VeriFone alleging infringement of the ‘945 patent. On June 8, 2012, a jury determined that VeriFone infringed the ‘945 patent and that the patent was valid. That decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Dell moved to compel the production of certain internal counsel communications at the plaintiff, MLR. MLR had refused to produce the documents, claiming work product protection.

As explained by the district court, “[i]n the circumstances presented here, which are the result of MLR’s choices, the established policies underlying the work product doctrine require that the phrase ‘in anticipation of litigation’ in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) be limited, with respect to non-opinion material, to material generated solely with respect to MLR’s relationship with a particular potential licensee/defendant beginning at the time that potential licensee/defendant is identified. Other or more general relationship to litigation will render the material presumptively business-related and not protected.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., the patent owner requested authorization to file a motion for leave to take discovery of petitioner General Electric regarding whether GE is in privity with a defendant in litigation with the patent owner. Should the patent owner prevail and prove that GE is in privity with its customer, then the patent owner asserts that an inter partes review cannot be instituted because of the time limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), presumably because GE’s customer was served with a complaint more than one year before the petitioner filed the instant IPR petition.

The patent owner seeks the production of the following information:

(1) an indemnification agreement between Petitioner and [customer] that was claimed to be entered into around December 30, 2011; (2) any other indemnification agreements between Petitioner and [customer] regarding the Oklahoma litigation; (3) communications regarding these indemnification agreements; (4) retention agreements between Petitioner, [customer], and counsel for Petitioner and [customer] in the Oklahoma litigation; (5) the amounts of legal bills paid by Petitioner for its defense of the Oklahoma litigation; and (6) indemnification agreements between Petitioner and other defendants in the Oklahoma litigation.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between Ultratec, Inc. (“Ultratec”) and Sorenson Communications, Inc. (“Sorenson”), Sorenson sought to admit evidence of an inter partes review proceeding of the patent-in-suit. Sorenson wanted to admit the evidence to contradict the plaintiff’s use of the presumption of validity of the patent.

As explained by the district court, “[a]t the final pretrial conference on October 3, however, defendants expressed their view that, in light of the court’s ruling that it would instruct the jury on the presumption of validity and allow plaintiffs’ counsel to refer to the presumption during argument, evidence as to the pending inter partes review proceedings is relevant and admissible to rebut the presumption of validity.”
Continue reading