Published on:

by

Defendant Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. (“Omron”) filed a motion to stay pending an Inter Partes Review that it initiated against Plaintiff’s National Oilwell Varco, L.P.’s (“NOV”) patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,474,142 (the ‘142 patent), is directed to automatic drilling.

As the district court explained, “[o]n May 3, 2013, Omron opened up a second front in its legal battle with NOV, by filing a petition for inter partes review with the United States Patent Office. This review process, a relative novelty, is before a panel of three administrative patent judges, as part of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). 35 U.S. C §§6, 316(c). NOV has three months, from the date of Omron’s PTAB petition, to file a response, 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b), and the PTAB in turn has three months after that to determine whether an inter partes review will proceed, 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). In other words, it will likely be five months before the Court or the parties even know if an inter partes review will actually occur here. If the PTAB grants review, by statute it must render a final determination within one year. Id. § 316(a)(11). The one-year period can be extended for a further sixth months upon a showing of good cause. Id. As such, there is a possibility the entire inter partes review process would take nearly two years. Even assuming the parties and the PTAB move expeditiously, the stay Omron seeks could easily last many months or a year, at least.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Graco Childrens Products Inc. (“Graco”) filed a patent infringement action against Kids II, Inc. (“Kids II”). During discovery, Graco and Kids II agreed to discuss terms to settle the dispute. As part of that process, Graco’s in-house counsel sent an email to Kids II’s in-house counsel, with a settlement proposal calling for a two-year mutual non-solicitation provision and a purchase by Kids II of the family of patents-in-suit with a non-exclusive license back to Graco for $1,150,000 or, in place of an outright purchase of the patents, a full settlement of the pending claims for $750,000. The offer was contingent on the execution of a mutually agreeable settlement agreement and was to expire on March 15, 2013.

On March, 19, 2013, Kids II’s in house counsel set forth a counterproposal, offering $750,000 for, among other things, the purchase of the patents previously identified by Graco and a mutual two-year moratorium on employee solicitation. Graco responded by seeking clarification on whether Graco would be granted a right to practice the patents and the parties then attempted to reach an agreement on the amount for the settlement.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, Apple moved to compel production from Emblaze based on search terms that Apple provided. Emblaze opposed the motion, arguing that it had produced all responsive documents, that Apple’s requests were overbroad and that using Apple’s search terms would be unduly burdensome.

The court began its opinion by noting that “[w]hen decrying the burden imposed by the document demands of an adversary, parties would be wise to follow Hemmingway’s advice to ‘show the readers everything, tell them nothing.’ Unfortunately, in the patent infringement case, [Emblaze] appears to have ignored Papa’s guidance.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After Fujitsu Limited (“Fujitsu”) filed a patent infringement action against Tellabs, Inc. (“Tellabs”), Tellabs filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of lost profits. As explained by the district court, Fujitsu Limited, a Japanese corporation, is the sole owner of two United States patents that Fujitsu Limited asserted in the litigation, U.S. Patent No. 5,521,737 (“137 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163 (“163 Patent”). Although Fujitsu Limited owns the patents, which relate to telecommunications systems, Fujitsu Limited does not sell any telecommunications systems in the United States. Sales of Fujitsu Limited’s patented telecommunications systems in the United States are made by a non-exclusive licensee, its wholly-owned United States subsidiary FNC, which is a California corporation and headquartered in Richmond, Texas.

Tellabs contended in its motion “that (1) Fujitsu Limited is not entitled to damages in the form of the lost profits because it sells no products in the United States and (2) Fujitsu Limited cannot claim the lost profits of its North American subsidiary and non-exclusive licensee, Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc.” The district court explained that Fujitsu Limited sought to recover the profits that were allegedly lost by its domestic subsidiary, FNC, due to Tellabs’ sales of the allegedly infringing systems pursuant to the 2005 Verizon and 2006 Quest contracts that Tellabs obtained.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After a jury determined that certain defendants induced infringement of the plaintiff’s patents by, among other things, selling unregulated and semi-regulated bus converters to third parties, such as Cisco, Cisco moved to intervene into the case. The district court explained that “[t]he jury found that Cisco, among others, was a direct infringer whose products incorporating Defendants’ bus converters directly infringed SynQor’s patents when they were sold in the United States. Judge Ward entered a Permanent Injunction and awarded supplemental damages for Defendants’ continued sale of bus converters through January 24, 2011.”

Cisco sought to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a). Cisco asserted that it purchased intermediate bus converters (“IBCs”) from the Defendants that are the subject of the damages and, as a result,. Cisco sought to intervene for two reasons:

• “Cisco has agreed with certain defendants to assume liability for damages that may be awarded in this case, giving Cisco a significant interest in ensuring the damages awarded to SynQor are accurately calculated and not inflated; and
• Cisco has the most relevant and important evidence regarding the number of IBC shipments for which SynQor is entitled to a royalty.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

H-W Technology, L.C. (“H-W”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple and several other defendants including Amazon and Buy.com. H-W alleged that it had ownership of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,955, entitled “Internet Protocol (IP) Phone with Search and Advertising Capability” (the ‘955 patent). The 955 patent is directed to systems and methods of using a multi-convergence device, including phones commonly referred to as smartphones, which are able to converge voice and data within a single terminal, and which allow users of such devices via domain specific applications to receive information and offers from merchants and to complete a transaction with one of said merchants without having to generate a phone call.

The Defendants argued that claims 1 and 17 of the patent were indefinite and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, for combining two statutory classes of invention within a single claim. The defendants also asserted that claim construction was not necessary to rule on the motion to dismiss because H-W had not included any argument in its claim construction briefs regarding the subject-matter class covered by the claim language at issue. H-W asserted that the validity of its patent claims had to be considered on summary judgment context, with the benefit of claim construction and expert discovery, and not on a motion to dismiss.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff ProconGPS, Inc. (“Procon”) filed a patent infringement action against Skypatrol, LLC (“Skypatrol”). During the expert phase of the case, a dispute arose over the deposition of plaintiff’s experts.

The parties disputed whether Skypatrol should be permitted to depose plaintiffs’ experts twice, once after Procon’s initial expert report and again after rebuttal reports are issued. Skypatrol contended that Skypatrol’s experts should be able to take Procon’s experts’ depositions into account when preparing their own reports. Procon asserted that the purpose of expert deposition is to develop cross-examination for trial and/or for a Daubert motion, but not for building a case for one’s own expert. Procon also asserted that two rounds of depositions would be impractical and would be wasteful.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) alleged infringement of several patents against Best Buy Stores, L.P. (“Best Buy”) that pertain to stored value/debit cards. Best Buy moved to exclude the opinion of Alexsam’s damage expert, James L. McGovern, asserting that Mr. McGovern was applying a “rule of thumb” analysis that had no basis to calculate a reasonable royalty.

After setting out Rule 702 and the Daubert factors, the district court noted that “[t]he Daubert factors might be applicable when assessing the reliability of non-scientific expert testimony, depending upon ‘the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue.’ Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999). This analysis focuses on the reasoning or methodology employed by the expert, not the ultimate conclusion. Watkins, 121 F.3d at 989. The purpose being ‘to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.’ Skidmore v. Precision Printing and Packaging, Inc., 188 F.3d 606, 618 (5th Cir.1999), quoting Kumho Tire, 119 S.Ct. at 1176. Thus, the court ‘must review only the reasonableness of the expert’s use of such an approach, together with his particular method of analyzing data so obtained, to draw a conclusion regarding the specific matter to which the expert testimony is directly relevant.’ American Tourmaline Fields v. International Paper Co., 1999 WL 242690 at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr.19, 1999), citing Kumho Tire, 119 S.Ct. at 1177.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the plaintiff, Peerless Industries, Inc. (“Peerless”) produced an arguably privileged document to the defendant, Crimson AV LLC (“Crimson”), Peerless asserted that the document was inadvertently disclosed and was privileged. Crimson filed a motion to compel production of the document, particularly asserting that it should be produced under an exception to the attorney-client privilege.

As explained by the district court, “Defendants have filed a motion for an in-camera inspection of a particular document inadvertently produced by plaintiff [dkts. 230, 231]. Defendants seek a ruling that this document is discoverable, and not to be returned to plaintiff based on the inadvertent disclosure provision of the parties’ protective order, because of the crime-fraud exception. We deny that request and find plaintiff’s inadvertent disclosure did not waive the attorney-client privilege.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Plaintiff Automatic Manufacturing Systems, Inc. (“AMS”) manufactures and markets equipment used to print machine readable labels on glass microscope slides. Defendant Primera Technology, Inc. (“Primera”) competes against AMS in the glass-microscope-slide-printing-machine market. AMS owns U.S. Patent No. 8,013,884 (“the ‘884 patent”), The ‘884 patent is directed to a device that can print information onto the surface of a glass object and methods for doing so. On March 19, 2013, Primera filed a petition for inter partes review of the ‘884 patent with the United States Patent and Trademark office. Primera then moved to stay the case pending the outcome of the inter partes review.

As explained by the district court, “Defendant asks the Court to stay this litigation based upon the mere fact that it petitioned the USPTO to initiate an administrative proceeding called an inter partes review. This type of proceeding is relatively new. It was created by Congress in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”) in response to perceived deficiencies in an older administrative proceeding called an inter partes reexamination. See Universal Elecs., Inc., 2013 WL 1876459, at *1″
Continue reading