Published on:

by

Having obtained a $1.5 billion judgment and an ongoing royalty against Marvell, Carnegie Mello University (“CMU”) sought to liquidated the ongoing royalty amount in the Final Judgment. In response, Marvell argued that the district court made clear in its decision that such ongoing royalties are to be dealt with as a separate matter. The parties are battling over these amounts as they will impact the amount of the supersedas bond, which will be a very significant amount given the damage award.

The district court agreed with Marvell, finding that the ongoing royalties should be addressed as a separate matter and not be liquidated in the Final Judgment. “To this end, as the Court recounted in its decision of March 31, 2014, through its various post-trial motions, CMU sought supplemental damages for damages which accrued from July 2012 until the date of the initial Judgment in this case, i.e., January 14, 2013, and the Court awarded supplemental damages of $79,550,288.00, a figure which represented the supplemental damages for the infringement until that date. (Docket No. 933]).”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (“Andrulis”) filed a patent infringement action against Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”) alleging direct, induced, and contributory infringement. Celgene filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim.

After Andrulis voluntarily dismissed the contributory infringement claim, the district court analyzed the claims for direct and induced infringement. For direct infringement, Andrulis alleged two factually distinct theories. “The first is that Celgene itself directly infringes the claims because it administers the patented method, which Andrulis refers to as the undivided direct infringement claim. The second is that Celgene is a joint infringer because physicians administer the patented method under Celgene’s direction and control, which Andrulis refers to as the joint direct infringement claim.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Nu Flow Technologies (2000) Inc. (“Nu Flow) filed a patent infringement action against Defendant A.O. Reed & Company (“A.O. Reed”) and ten Doe defendants based on two patents U.S. Patent No. 7,849,883 B2 (the ‘883 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,691,741 132 (the ‘741 patent). The ‘883 patent, entitled “Liner Assembly for Pipeline Repair and Methods of Installing Same,” claims a liner assembly used to repair a pipeline. The ‘741 patent, entitled “Installation Assemblies for Pipeline Liners, Pipeline Liners and Methods for Installing the Same,” claims an installation assembly and a method for installing a liner in a pipeline.

A.O. Reed moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Complaint should be dismissed because Nu Flow’s allegations of joint infringement fail to meet the pleading standard of Twombly and Iqbal. Joint infringement exists only “if one party exercises control or direction over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party, i.e., the mastermind.” Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Digital Ally, Inc. (“Digital Ally”) filed a declaratory judgment action pertaining to patent infringement against Utility Associates, Inc. (“Utility”). Utility filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction.

Digital Ally is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas. It sells advanced digital video systems to consumers, including law enforcement agencies, across the country. Utility, which is a competitor of Digital Ally, is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Georgia. Utility has no offices in Kansas and none of its employees or sales agents reside in Kansas. Utility is not registered to do business in Kansas, but it does sell some products to a few customers in Kansas.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff filed a patent infringement action and also filed an application to proceed in pro per and In Forma Pauperis. The defendants file a motion to dismiss the action based on false statements in the application.

As the district court explained, “[t]he Application requires the applicant to detail all sources of income he has received within the last twelve months and to declare under penalty of perjury that all of the information provided is true. The Declaration further notes that the applicant understands that a false statement may result in a dismissal of the claims.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After a jury returned a verdict against Marvell for patent infringement, Carnegie Mellon (“CMU”) filed several motions, including for prejudgment interest, for supplemental damages, for enhanced damages, for an ongoing, increased royalty rate triple what the jury found, and for a permanent injunction.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff SecureBuy, LLC (“SecureBuy”) filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings pending resolution of a Covered Business Methods (“CBM”) review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”). When the motion was stayed, the PTAB had not yet granted review of the CBM petition.

Before ruling on the stay request, the district court had previously heard argument on defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction or in the alternative for expedited discovery and an expedited trial. The district court denied the preliminary injunction but granted Defendant’s request to expedite the case and scheduled trial for August of 2014. When it opposed the preliminary injunction and expedited trial, SecureBuy made similar arguments as it raised in its motion to say pending the CBM review, which the district court considered when ruling on the previous motion.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement case, the district court received a number of motions to strike portions of expert reports and to exclude the testimony of certain experts. As stated by the district court, it received the following: “Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report and Exclude the Testimony of Richard Belgard Regarding Infringement by Systematically Reseeding Pseudorandom Number Generators” [#247 filed January 27, 2014]; plaintiffs “Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dell Expert Witness Dr. Markus Jakobsson” [#252 filed January 31, 2014]; the “Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report and Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Stephen Melvin Regarding Statistical Confidence Levels” [#254 filed February 3, 2014]; “Defendant Dell Inc.’ s Sealed Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Robert Mills” [#258 filed February 5, 2014]; and plaintiffs “Sealed Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of Stephen Magee” [#266 filed February 13, 2014].
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Potter Voice submitted an expert declaration of David Klausner for the purpose of claim construction. Microsoft moved to exclude the declaration under Fed.R.Evid. 702.

The district court explained the background of the patent as follows: In 1998, United States patent number 5,729,659 (the ‘659 patent) was issued to Jerry L. Potter. Plaintiff, Potter voice Technologies LLC, now owns the ‘659 patent. The ‘659 patent describes a method and apparatus for controlling a digital computer using oral input. The patent infringement claims alleged in Potter’s complaint are based on four distinct software products: (1) BlackBerry Voice Commands; (2) Google Voice Search; (3) Google Voice Actions; and (4) Windows Speech Commands. Potter alleges that the defendants infringe the ‘659 patent when these software products are used on mobile phones.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff GPNE Corporation (“GPNE”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple. As part of its case, GPNE wanted to retain two experts, Ghobad Heidari and Kamran Etemad, and Apple objected for two reasons. First, as explained by the court, Apple argued that if Heidari and Etemad are given access to Apple’s confidential information (as would be required for them to act as experts), Apple would suffer extreme prejudice in the marketplace as both Heidari and Etemad are active in patenting mobile technology. Second, Apple argued that the patent prosecution bar within the protective order prohibited Heidari and Etemad from being granted access to its proprietary information, as both men have patent applications now pending before the Patent and Trademark Office.

After citing some recent decisions from the Northern District of California on experts, the court considered the risk to Apple if Heidari were granted access to its confidential information. “Heidari presents precisely the same risks as the expert in Symantec. He is an active consultant in the field at issue. In the very recent past, he has worked for several of Apple’s competitors, and there has been no representation or agreement that he will not do so again in the very near future. Apple points out several ways in which the information to which he would be exposed as an expert in this case could influence his work as a consultant on patent licensing, reverse engineering, and portfolio management, even if he were to make his best efforts to cabin the information off in his mind, and the court finds these concerns persuasive. Furthermore, despite the concerns raised by Apple, GPNE has not identified any unique qualifications or knowledge that make Heidari better suited than any other expert to serve.”
Continue reading