Published on:

by

Danisco US, Inc. (“Danisco”) filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that its Rapid Starch Liquefaction products (“RSL products”) do not infringe certain patents held by Novozymes and that the patent-in-suit is invalid. Danisco and Novoyzymes are two of the major competitors in the field of developing and supplying industrial enzymes used in the process of converting corn into ethanol fuel.

Novozymes moved to dismiss the action and asserted that Danisco did not allege, and could not allege, that Novozymes took any affirmative act to enforce the patent-in-suit against Danisco. Danisco asserted that there was an actual controversy between the parties because it could be reasonably inferred that Novozymes obtained the patent with the hopes of asserting it against Danisco’s products.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a patent case pending before Judge Koh in the Northern District of California, Defendant Pinnaclife Inc. (“Pinnaclife”) moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff CreAgri, Inc. (“CreAgri”) infringement claims under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The Court denied in part and granted in part CreaGri’s motion finding that Pinnaclife’s amended complaint alleged facts sufficient to plausibly state a claim for direct infringement, but failed to meet the pleading requirements for indirect infringement.

First, the Court held that the pleading standards for direct infringement are governed by Form 18, even though the patent claims at issue were method claims:

[A] claim for direct infringement of a method patent is still a claim for direct infringement, and is therefore governed by the Form 18 pleading standard. Nothing in Form 18 suggests that its applicability is limited to device patents, nor did the Federal Circuit, in confirming that pleading requirements for direct infringement claims are governed by Form 18, suggest that this holding should be limited to device patents.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

In a patent infringement action brought by Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) against thirteen separate defendants, grouped into seven issuers of electronic gift cards, the Eastern District of Texas decided to sever the defendants as the case got closer to trial. As explained by the court, “[t]his is the sixth lawsuit that Alexsam has pursued in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,000,608 (“the ‘608 patent”) and 6,189,787 (“the ‘787 patent”), which relate to stored value/debit cards. The final pretrial conference is currently scheduled March 4, 2013, with a single trial to begin no more than four weeks later. Given the unique issues that exist within the defendant/defendant groups and the complexities involved in attempting to try this case in one trial in less than two months, the Court must sever the seven groups of defendants into their own separate cause of action.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Yesterday, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) issued a decision in the first IPR filed, i.e., IPR2012-00001. Garmin International, Inc. (“Garmin”) filed the IPR on a patent owned and asserted by Cuozzo Special Technologies LLC (“Cuozzo”), U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 covering a speed limit indicator.

Central to Garmin’s IPR Petition and the PTAB’s decision was the meaning of the claim term “integrally attached” as used in the claim phrase “a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display.” Garmin argued that, for the purposes of the petition, this term should be given the broad construction urged by the Patent Owner in the related litigation of the ‘074 Patent. Garmin did not identify its proposed construction. The PTAB rejected this approach.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Allvoice Developments US LLC (“Allvoice”) moved to amend its infringement contentions against Microsoft. Allvoice sought the amendment to incorporate changes that related to two claim constructions by the district court that differed from those asserted by Allvoice and to provide technical corrections or clarifications that would avoid confusion. Allvoice asserted there was good cause for the amendments and there be no prejudice to Microsoft. Microsoft opposed the amendment on the grounds of undue delay and unfair prejudice.

The district court began its analysis of the motion by citing to the local patent rules. “Local Patent Rule 124 allows for amendments of infringement contentions ‘only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.’ W.D. Wash. Local Patent Rule 124. Non-exhaustive examples of circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the non-moving party, support a finding of good cause include: (a) a claim construction by the Court different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment; (b) recent discovery of material prior art despite earlier diligent search; and (c) recent discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused Device which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement Contentions.”
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere System LLC (collectively, “LSI” or “Complainants”) filed a motion for leave to amend their amended complaint in order to clarify the scope of the accused products of Respondent Funai Electric Company (“Funai”). LSI sought to clarify that the scope of the accused products were not limited to Funai products that contain an integrated circuited component supplied by either Realtek or MediaTek.

In support of its motion, LSI argued that their would be no prejudice to Funai because LSI had consistently maintained that the scope of the accused products was not limited to Funai products incorporating solely MediaTek and Realtek components. Funai opposed the motion, asserting that LSI had not shown any new information that would justify the proposed amendment and that it would be prejudiced by the proposed amendments because LSI would be able to expand the scope of the accused Funai products at a late stage of the investigation.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Klausner Technologies, Inc. (“Klausner Technologies”) filed a patent infringement action against Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. (“Interactive Intelligence” or “IIG”). After the action was filed, Klausner Technologies assigned all of its interest in the patent-in-suit to IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. (“IPVX”), including the rights to enforce the patent and to recover for past infringement of the patent. IPVX was incorporated only three days before the assignment. As a result of the assignment, Klausner Technologies moved to substitute IPVX for Klausner Technologies as the plaintiff and counter-defendant in the patent infringement action.

Interactive Intelligence agreed that IPVX should be joined as a plaintiff but opposed the dismissal of Klausner Technologies from the action. Interactive Intelligence asserted that because virtually all of the discovery would come from Klausner Technologies and its officers and employees, dismissing Klausner Technologies would cause added expense and delay as discovery would be needed from a third party. Klausner Technologies responded by arguing that it had agreed to provide all information regarding the patent to IPVX. Klausner Technologies also argued that it had to be dismissed because it no longer had standing to participate in the litigation as a result of the assignment of the patent.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

In the patent infringement action brought by Carnegie Mellon University (“Carnegie Mellon” or “CMU”) against Marvell Technology Group, LTD. (“Marvell’), the jury returned a verdict in favor of Carnegie Mellon in the amount of $1.17 billion, finding that Marvell had infringed two patents owned by Carnegie Mellon. The jury also found that Marvell’s infringement of the patents was willful, paving the way for the potential for enhanced damages as well as an award of attorneys’ fees. Marvell has vowed to challenge the damage award before the district court and, if necessary, the Federal Circuit.

A few days before the jury returned its verdict, Carnegie Mellon filed a motion to preclude Marvell from relying on an advice of counsel defense to defend against the charge of willful infringement. Carnegie Mellon filed a motion to strike the testimony of one of Marvell’s witnesses and also to preclude Marvell from relying on an advice of counsel defense.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

After the jury returned a verdict in Apple’s favor for over $1 billion in damages, Samsung moved the district court for a new trial. Samsung’s based its motion on the argument that the jury foreperson gave dishonest answers during voir dire and that interviews he gave after the verdict demonstrated that he was biased. As explained by the district court, “Samsung claims that Mr. Hogan lied about his involvement nineteen years ago in a lawsuit with Seagate, a company in which Samsung is, as of 2011, a 9.6% shareholder. Samsung also argues that Mr. Hogan improperly presented extraneous prejudicial information during jury deliberations.”

The jury foreperson had not disclosed that he was sued by his former employer, Seagate, in 1993 and that he had filed for personal bankruptcy six months after he was sued by Seagate. Samsung asserted that it learned of the jury foreperson’s lawsuit with Seagate only after it reviewed the bankruptcy file, which occurred after the trial had concluded.
Continue reading

Published on:

by

Apple suffered yet another set back in the Smartphone wars, this time losing its motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung. The district court denied the permanent injunction primarily on the ground that Apple could not show irreparable harm that would result to Apple if an injunction did not issue.

As explained by the district court, “[T]o satisfy the irreparable harm factor in a patent infringement suit, a patentee must establish both of the following requirements: 1) that absent an injunction, it will suffer irreparable harm, and 2) that a sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 695 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Apple II” ). This test requires a showing that consumers buy the infringing product “because it is equipped with the apparatus claimed in the . . . patent,” and not merely because it includes a feature of the type covered by the patent. Id. at 1376.”
Continue reading