BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)... *Liability and Data Breach Sold Separately
Patent Office Litigation Update: IPR Discovery and Evidentiary PTAB Decisions
Polsinelli Podcast - Social Media at Work - What's Allowed and What Isn't?
[Legal Perspective] When Is It NOT Okay to Delete Your Social Media Account?
Garmin Int’l, Inc., et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC; Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc. -
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) recently designated as “informative” two decisions earlier released...more
In Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Enplas Corporation, IPR2014-00605, Paper 13 (October 16, 2014), the Board authorized the Patent Owner to move for additional discovery about testing that Petitioner conducted. ...more
Colorado hospitals and other licensed and certified health care facilities scored a significant victory on October 14, when the Colorado Supreme Court issued its en banc ruling in Simpson v. Cedar Springs Hospital, Inc. (2014...more
Still confused about how much discovery you will be able to obtain in an IPR? Fear not, as two of the PTAB’s Administrative Patent Judges have weighed in with a primer on inter partes review discovery. ...more
Traversing the infamous Hollywood Walk of Fame elicits visions of glitz and glamour, a street afire with opening nights, leading ladies and leading men, iconic directors and prolific producers, and films that place marked key...more
Our previews of the newest additions to the Illinois Supreme Court’s civil docket continue with Hadley v. Subscriber Doe. Hadley is a defamation case arising from an anonymous internet posting, but that issue comes wrapped in...more
In Pennsylvania, testifying experts usually are not deposed before trial; typically, their written reports are provided in advance of trial and delineate the substance and scope of their testimony. Attorneys often wish to...more
In the recent judgment of Ho v Fordyce (ex parte)  NSWSC 1404, the plaintiffs were granted relief similar to an Anton Piller order; namely, orders for access to and the making of copies of material on the defendant’s...more
On October 6, 2014, Judge Eric G. Bruggink of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued an order on the disputed production of documents and interrogatory responses requested from the U.S. Department of the Treasury by...more
Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corp. -
Applying recent standards for determining whether a case is “exceptional” under Octane Fitness for purposes of awarding fees, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas...more
The volume of electronically stored information (“ESI”) has exploded, often making discovery prohibitively expensive. Supporters of “predictive coding” champion it as a way to reduce significantly the cost of discovery....more
On September 16, 2014, the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure approved the proposed slate of amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed amendments include changes to two...more
In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00717, Paper 17, IPR2014-00735, Paper 17 (October 2, 2014), the patent owner presented sufficient information to call into question whether Google was also a...more
On July 14, 2014, the Court in United States v. University of Nebraska at Kearny (No. 4:11CV3209) took a significant step in support of Federal Rules 1 and 26. Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart denied plaintiff’s motion to...more
During discovery in Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the IRS filed a motion to compel two taxpayers to produce two backup storage tapes, copies of the tapes, or their...more
Dynamo Holdings v. Comm’r, Nos. 2685-11, 8393-12, 2014 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40 (U.S. Tax Sept. 17, 2014).
In this tax law case, the defendant requested the plaintiff produce two backup storage tapes. The plaintiff...more
Supreme Court to Hear Tax Injunction Act Case -
On August 20, 2013, in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the federal Tax Injunction Act (TIA) prohibited...more
In a partially-published opinion filed September 29, 2014, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed an order and judgment permitting the County of San Diego to recover actual labor costs incurred for an attorney and...more
An Indiana gambler lost another hand in the latest ruling by the Tax Court on his continuing discovery disputes with the Indiana Department of Revenue. On September 18th the Court denied Nick Popovich’s motion for default...more
Small v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., No. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114406 (D. Nev. Aug. 18, 2014).
In this employment law dispute, the court appointed a special master to resolve discovery issues....more
In the Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell International, Inc., the Patent Owner moved for additional discovery to depose a third party witness whose declarations were relied upon by Petitioner in its Reply to...more
Plaintiff Dri-Steem Corporation ("Dri-Steem") sought production of documents in the possession and control of the defendant's parent company National Environmental Products, Ltd. ("National"), via its wholly-owned subsidiary...more
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are supposed to be “construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Yet, as anyone who has ever been tasked with...more
On September 17, the U.S. Tax Court, in Dynamo Holdings LP v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. No. 9 (Sept. 17, 2014), held that a taxpayer could use predictive coding, over the objection of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to...more
Boston Scientific Corp. v. Lee, No. 2041 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107584 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014).
In this intellectual property case, the plaintiff corporation alleged that the defendant’s employment with another company...more
Back to Top