Published on:

by

As Apple and Samsung prepare for a new trial on damages, Apple filed a motion to exclude part of the damage calculation set forth in Samsung’s updated expert report on damages. In particular, Apple moved to exclude the damage calculation pertaining to the Samsung Gem phone on the ground that these calculations are based on fewer sales than were originally included in the 2012 expert report. The 2012 expert report calculated damages for the Gem based on total sales and the new report calculated sales only for Gem phones sold through Verizon. Samsung asserted that the updated damages calculations were proper because Apple presented evidence of infringement only for Gem phones sold through Verizon at the 2012 trial and Apple therefore failed to meet its burden to prove its entitlement to damages for Gem phones sold through other carriers.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the patent infringement action between Cobra International, Inc. (“Cobra”) and BCNY International, Inc. (“BCNY”), BCNY filed a motion to compel several documents, including a litigation funding agreement. Cobra opposed the motion asserting that the person funding the litigation was not making decisions regarding the lawsuit and was not interfering with the prosecution of the litigation. BCNY asserted that it was entitled to the document to determine if the patent had transferred.

As explained by the district court, “[i]n response to request for production number 32, which pertains to the litigation funding agreement, Mr. Eavzan stated in his declaration that ‘Cobra continues to own the ‘858 patent. The person or entity funding Cobra’s prosecution of the lawsuit against [BCNY] is not making the decisions for Cobra regarding the above-styled lawsuit, is not interfering with the independence and professional judgment of Cobra’s counsel relating to the above-styled lawsuit, and is not receiving confidential communications between Cobra and its counsel relating to the above-styled lawsuit.'”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Porto Technology Co., LTD (“Porto”) filed a patent infringement action against Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”). During the litigation, Verizon moved to compel communications between two of the plaintiffs, who are brothers, and counsel. As explained by the district court, the court began by looking at “communications between Ji-Soo Lee, Heung-Soo Lee (“Lee Brothers”) and counsel. Obviously, any communications between Plaintiff Ji-Soo Lee and his counsel pertaining to this or directly related infringement litigation is covered by attorney-client privilege. Communications between Heung-Soo Lee and his counsel do not appear to be similarly cloaked. Any privilege that existed was waived by Heung-Soo Lee by voluntarily disclosing communications concerning this — and related litigation — with both the Court and the Defendant, Verizon. Over 100 unsolicited documents pertaining to the ‘518 and ‘413 patents have been received and retained by the Clerk of this Court.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Method Claims Applying Conventional Techniques to a Natural Phenomenon Held to be Patent Ineligible Subject Matter

By Ali Shalchi
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found Sequenom’s patent claims on a prenatal diagnostic method to be invalid and not infringed by Arisoa Diagnostic’s Harmony Test product, because the asserted claims were directed at patent ineligible subject matter. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-06391-SI (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2013). The court, applying relevant Supreme Court cases, including Prometheus and Myriad Genetics, found that the patent claims were based on a routine and conventional use of natural phenomenon and were therefore patent ineligible. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).

Sequenom is the exclusive licensee of the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (“‘540 patent”), which it licensed from Isis Innovation Limited. The ‘540 patent is directed at non-invasive prenatal detection methods that are performed on a maternal serum or plasma sample to detect a paternally-inherited nucleic acid of fetal origin. The prenatal diagnosis may include sex determination, blood typing and other genotyping, as well as detection of pre-eclampsia in the mother. The ‘540 patent is based on the discovery in 1996-1997 that cell-free fetal DNA (“cffDNA”) is detectable in maternal serum or plasma samples, such that the process of isolating fetal cells was no longer needed.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action between competing producers of satellites and satellite networking systems, ViaSat plaintiffs asserted that Space Systems/Loral infringed the ‘875 patent. As explained by the district court, the ViaSat plaintiffs are corporations that develop commercial and military satellite and digital communication technologies. SS/L is a wholly owned subsidiary of Loral, and both SS/L and Loral are also involved in the satellite business. In 2006, ViaSat and SS/L began negotiating over the possibility of collaborating on a major satellite construction project.

SS/L moved for summary judgment arguing that the earliest date at which ViaSat’s claims to the ‘875 Patent had written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 was March 25, 2009. The ‘875 Patent is a “continuation-in-part” application, and ViaSat argued that it claims priority to a series of provisional applications that it filed in 2006.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff NetAirus Technologies, LLC (“NetAirus”) asserted that Apple infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,103,380 (the “‘380 Patent”). The ‘380 Patent claims methods in which a “handset unit [ ] configured to a personal digital assistant (PDA)” wirelessly communicates over both a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”). Apple filed a Daubert Motion to exclude the expert reports and opinions of NetAirus’ survey experts and any references to those opinions in the opinion of NetAirus’ damage expert.

After reciting the standards for a Daubert challenge, the district court addressed the specific survey opinions at issue. “No portion of the Marylander and Berger surveys directly accounted for all of limitations of the asserted claims; specifically, the surveys did not ask consumers about the limitations concerning transmission power. Mot., Dkt. 424 at 3-4, 9-12. Apple argues that the failure to align the scope of the claimed invention with the scope of the features explored in the survey means that this case is on all fours with Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung, No. 6:09-cv-203-LED-JDL, 2011 WL 7563820 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2011). In Fractus, the plaintiff commissioned two surveys to value “incorporating internal antennas in cell phones in place of external antennas” and “the relative importance of internal antennas in cell phones to consumers.” 2011 WL 7563820 at *1. The court excluded the surveys because they measured the value of something -¬internal vs. external antennas – that was more broad than what was covered by the patents — specific improvements to internal antennas. Id.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiffs Kim Laube & Co. (“Laube”) brought this patent infringement action against Defendant Wahl Clipper Corp. (“Wahl”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,473,973 (“the ‘973 Patent”), which is titled “Disposable Cutting Head for Clippers.” After jury and bench trials, Laube filed a motion dismiss all patent related claims and counterclaims because the Federal Circuit rejected Laube’s challenge to the reexamination’s invalidation of claims 1-5 of the ‘973 Patent; and (ii) Laube granted Wahl a covenant not to sue. Wahl opposed the Motion.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

As a result of Samsung’s alleged violation of the protective order, Magistrate Judge Grewal previously ordered Samsung to produce to Apple emails and communications by Samsung employees that would shed light on the scope of the alleged protective order violation and to make available for deposition various witnesses by October 16, 2013. Samsung appealed from the Magistrate Judge’s order to the district court.

Samsung’s motion raised three arguments: (1) the order would “improperly abrogate privilege and work-product protection,” (2) the order may “require Samsung to violate other protective orders,” and (3) the order’s “scope of compelled information is grossly overbroad.” The district court rejected each argument.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action that was originally filed against a number of defendants, plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) moved for a continuance of the impending trial date set for October 2013. To support the motion, plaintiff notified the district court that it had terminated its relationship with its counsel of record and suggested that it anticipates litigation between itself and its counsel of record. Alexsam requested a delay in the trial setting so that it could secure new counsel.

The district court had previously conducted a consolidated trial on Defendants’ invalidity claims in May 2013. The jury found each of the asserted claims valid. As explained by the district court, “Shortly after the invalidity trial, Plaintiff and Best Buy, Inc. settled the remaining issues between them (Doc. No. 270 in 2:13-cv-2). The Court then tried the infringement issues in Alexsam, Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. (2:13-cv-3) and Alexsam, Inc. v. The Gap, Inc. (2:13-cv-4) in June 2013. The Barnes & Noble trial was conducted June 3-7, 2013, and the Gap trial was conducted June 24-28, 2013. Both juries found no infringement (Doc. No. 219 in 6:13-cv-3 and Doc. No. 243 in 6:13-cv-4).”
Continue reading