Latest Publications

Share:

Legitimate, Creative Advocacy Bars Rule 11 Sanctions

Worldwide Home Products, Inc., v. Bed, Bath and Beyond, Inc., et al. Case Number: 1:11-cv-03633-MHD - Worldwide sued Bed, Bath and Beyond (BBB) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7938300 (“Nestable...more

10/17/2014 - Bed Bath & Beyond Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Rule 11 Sanctions

Consent Decree in Window Covering Case Takes One Defendant From Case

Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Kohl’s Corporation, et al. Case Number: 1:14-cv-01743 - Plaintiff Hunter Douglas and defendant Welcome Industrial Corp. entered into a consent decree enjoining Welcome from infringing...more

10/16/2014 - Consent Decrees Kohls Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents

Supreme Court’s Footnote About Auckerman in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. Does Not Create New Law: Cordis’s Laches Defense...

Medinol Ltd., v. Cordis Corporation and Johnson & Johnson Case Number: 1:13-cv-0148-SAS In March, Judge Scheindlin found that laches formed a complete defense for Cordis in this matter. Medinol did not appeal...more

10/15/2014 - Affirmative Defenses Copyright Copyright Infringement Laches MGM Petrella v. MGM SCOTUS The Copyright Act

Terms Construed in Website Messaging Patent/Summary Judgment Denied In Light of New Construction/Testimony Excluded

523 IP LLC, v. CureMD.com - Case Number: 1:11-cv-09697-KPF - Judge Failla construed terms of U.S. Patent No. 7,702,523 (“Website messaging system”), and, as her construction at times differs significantly from...more

10/14/2014 - Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents

TMIF (Too Much Information, Folks) / Request To Limit Number Of References.

In anticipation of an upcoming Markman ruling, and after Monster sent a recent Federal Circuit decision to Judge Forrest, Job Diva sent the court a letter stating that Monster’s new case in fact supports Job Diva’s...more

10/13/2014 - Patent Litigation Patents

Judge Preska Finds a Design—Although Developed Using Test Equipment—To Be Ornamental

In this dispute concerning U.S. Patent No. D618,132 (“Diamond jewellery (sic)”), Judge Preska denied declaratory judgment plaintiff’s request for summary judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement, but granted the...more

10/10/2014 - Design Patent Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents

PTAB Prohibition on Incorporation by Reference: Avoiding and Responding to Rule 42.6(a)(3) Violations

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) Rule 37 CFR § 42.6(a)(3) prohibits argument that incorporate “by reference from one document into another document.” Rule 42.6(a)(3) serves two functional purposes. First, it simplifies...more

10/10/2014 - Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents

Invalidity under § 101 and defensive collateral estoppel defeat second DietGoal case

CaDietGoal Innovations LLC v. Time, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-08381 - Last month, in DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC, Case No. 1:13–cv-08391–PAE, we reported on Judge Engelmayer’s invalidation of...more

9/22/2014 - Collateral Estoppel Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Section 101

Stay pending interlocutory appeal of denial of stay for ungranted CBM petitions denied

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al. Case Number: 1:13-cv-03777 - Summary: JP Morgan Chase (“JPMC”), having lost a motion to stay this case pending resolution of IPRs and CBMs [LINK TO 19...more

9/19/2014 - Covered Business Method Patents Inter Partes Review Proceedings Interlocutory Appeals JPMorgan Chase Motion To Stay Patents

No stays for IPRs and CBMs in view of advanced stage of litigation and long PTAB timeline

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al. Case Number: 1:13-cv-03777 - Summary: In litigation filed June 2013 with a trial anticipated in the summer of 2015, Judge Hellerstein denied JP Morgan...more

9/18/2014 - Covered Business Method Patents Inter Partes Review Proceedings JPMorgan Chase Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents

Update: Patent valuation documents are relevant to this patent case

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al. Case Number: 1:13-cv-03777 - Last month, we reported that the court concluded that documents relating to patent valuation “have little or no...more

9/17/2014 - Asset Valuations JPMorgan Chase Patent Litigation Patents Valuation

Indirect infringement claims by Cuisinart against Mr. Coffee not tossed

Conair Corporation v. Jarden Corporation et al. Case Number: 1:13-cv-06702 - Jarden (maker of “Mr. Coffee” brand expresso [should “expresso” be “espresso” throughout?], cappuccino and latte machines) asked the...more

9/16/2014 - Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents

Judge Griesa finds a patent prosecution bar does not preclude litigation counsel from assisting in an IPR, and would have reached...

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. Case Number: 1:12-cv-08060 - Patentee Endo asked the court to rule that the protective orders in the patent infringement cases it filed...more

9/15/2014 - Inter Partes Review Proceedings Patent Litigation Patent Prosecution Patents Protective Orders

Third time’s a charm – infringement contentions not stricken

Times Three Clothier, LLC v. Spanx, Inc. - Case Number: 1:13-cv-02157 - We had previously reported on Times Three’s two failures to produce satisfactory infringement contentions in its infringement case against...more

9/12/2014 - Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Spanx

Complaint Alleges Malpractice in Claims Drafted for Push Up Bra Inserts

Runberg, Inc. d/b/a Zephyrs v. McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, et al. - Case Number: 652543/2014 - Runberg owns U.S. Patent No. 8,216,021 (“Engineered push up insert”), which claims a kidney-shaped push up insert...more

9/11/2014 - Attorney Malpractice Patent Litigation Patents

Conclusory statements about the relevance of foreign prosecution histories do not support motion to compel

Defendant Ablexis requested that the court compel the production of documents associated with the prosecution of non-U.S. patent applications related to the patent-in-suit. The court said that a defendant’s statement that the...more

9/2/2014 - Document Productions Motion to Compel Patent Litigation Patent-in-Suit Patents

Judge Forrest authorizes depositions of declarants to support defendant’s motion for summary judgment

Following defendant Monster’s filing of a motion for summary judgment, the patentee provided declarations by two expert witnesses in opposition. Monster noticed depositions of these experts, but the patentee moved for a...more

8/29/2014 - Expert Testimony Expert Witness Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Protective Orders Summary Judgment

Judge Forrest sets schedule for pruning claims

Judge Forrest, in a four-patent case having 64 asserted claims, ordered the plaintiff to reduce its asserted claim count to 16 within 7 days following the court’s Markman decision, and she said she will require additional...more

8/28/2014 - Patent Litigation Patents

Nutritional supplement claims fail to meet utility requirement, according to Judge Engelmayer

U.S. Patent No. 6,645,948 (“Nutritional composition for the treatment of connective tissue”) claims a “nutritional composition for the treatment of connective tissue in mammals comprising: a therapeutically effective amount...more

8/27/2014 - Nutritional Supplements Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents Utility Patents

Judge McMahon issues claim construction unconstrained by two courts’ prior constructions

Judge McMahon construed terms of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,156 (“Methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call”). The patent had previously been construed in Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB, 680 F. Supp. 2d 483...more

8/26/2014 - Claim Construction Patent Litigation Patents

Final office action rejecting claim sufficient to support stay pending appeal

In 2013, a jury found the four defendants liable for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,841,146 (“Reflector”). The defendants appealed to the Federal Circuit and filed for a reexamination of the patent. In the instant action,...more

8/25/2014 - Motions to Stay Proceedings Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents USPTO

A second patent in a chain falls to obviousness-type double patenting challenge

The court had previously determined that The Kennedy Trust’s U.S. Patent No. 7,846,442 (the “parent patent”) was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) to U.S. Patent No. 6,270,766 (“the grandparent“). At issue...more

8/21/2014 - Collateral Estoppel Obviousness Parent Patent Patents Pharmaceutical Patents

Meal planning claims bite the dust under the Mayo/Alice framework

Judge Engelmayer found claims of DietGoal’s U.S. Patent No. 6,858,516 (“Method and system for computerized visual behavior analysis, training, and planning”) invalid under § 101, and so he granted Bravo’s motion for summary...more

8/20/2014 - CLS Bank v Alice Corp Patent Infringement Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Software

Judge Forrest orders meet and confer to narrow discovery dispute

Saying, “[t]here is no way the court would ever order 5000+ custodians to be searched (on this record),” Judge Forrest ordered the parties to meet and confer to attempt to narrow a list of custodians whose documents must be...more

8/19/2014 - Discovery Evidence

Judge Hellerstein says Intellectual Ventures’ valuation documents have no relevance in this case

Judge Hellerstein decided three discovery disputes in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co, et al., where United States Patents Nos. 5,745,574 (“Security infrastructure for electronic transactions”), 6,826,694...more

8/18/2014 - Digital Assets Discovery Valuation

69 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3