A Discovery Master in Limestone Memory Systems LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc. pending in the Central District of California recently provided additional guidance to practitioners and patent owners on this important question. The...more
A recent order from the District of Delaware in Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-00542 (“Evolved Wireless”) provides interesting guidance regarding the use of future sales in calculating lump-sum damages. This...more
4/1/2019
/ Admissibility ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Cross Examination ,
Damages ,
Evidence ,
Jury Instructions ,
Lump Sum Payments ,
Patent Assertion Entities ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents
A recent order from the Northern District of California in AU Optronics Corporation America v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC, 4:18-cv-04638 (CAND 2019-02-19) (“AU Optronics”), provides further guidance for patent venue analysis...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently issued a precedential opinion finding that a lower court had improperly incorporated an embodiment from the specification of the asserted patents into the claims....more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion issued on November 1, 2018 clarifies the standard for a document to qualify as a “printed publication” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and reversed an earlier Patent...more
A recent opinion from the Northern District of Texas is a reminder to all patent practitioners to heed pleading standards when drafting a complaint for patent infringement. In Lexington Luminance LLC v. Service Lighting and...more
In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas recently issued an interesting decision regarding the venue analysis for car companies selling into a particular...more
9/19/2018
/ Automotive Industry ,
BMW ,
Car Dealerships ,
Foreign Defendants ,
Improper Venue ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Principal Place of Business ,
Venue
In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, the Southern District of New York recently held that an employee’s home office in New York constituted a “regular and established place of business” in the state as required by the...more
In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas recently held that venue was proper because Google exercises exclusive control over physical servers implicated by the litigation,...more
A recent decision by the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) improves a patent owner’s ability to demonstrate that it possesses a statutorily required “domestic industry” and can therefore obtain relief...more
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, the District of Nevada recently identified a key factor in analyzing venue challenges in patent litigation: whether the public can access the defendant corporation or its services...more
A recent decision by the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) improves intellectual property holders’ ability to prove that they have a “domestic industry” and obtain relief for infringement from the...more
7/17/2018
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Capital Expenditures ,
Capital Investments ,
Domestic Industry Requirement ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Manufacturers ,
Manufacturing Equipment ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Research and Development ,
Section 337
According to the Eastern District of Texas, no. In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, for the purpose of establishing venue, courts typically will decline to treat the place of business of one corporation as the place...more
A recent order from the Northern District of California provides some succinct guidance on the relevancy of discovery concerning litigation funding. In Space Data Corp. v. Google LLC, 5-16-cv-03260, the court denied...more
According to a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, no. In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, the court in CDX Diagnostic, Inc. v. U.S. Endoscopy Group, Inc. clarified that a storage unit does not...more
A recent opinion from the District of New Jersey is a cautionary tale for patent practitioners regarding conduct during patent prosecution that can be framed as bad faith. This can become an expensive misstep during...more
6/6/2018
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Bad Faith ,
Exceptional Case ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 285 ,
USPTO
A recent order from the Northern District of California provides patent practitioners interesting guidance regarding conduct during licensing discussions—and may be a cautionary tale to potential licensors engaged in...more
In another interesting development in our ongoing coverage of the application of the TC Heartland patent venue standard by lower courts, the District Court for the Western District of Texas recently determined that when a...more
In our continuing coverage of the post-TC Heartland landscape, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that venue is proper in only one district per state in In re BigCommerce, Inc., 2018-122 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (slip...more
5/24/2018
/ Forum Shopping ,
Multidistrict Litigation ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Principal Place of Business ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Incorporation ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue
In a May 10, 2018 ruling, discussed earlier on this blog, Magistrate Judge Payne affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding largely on the ground that TCL did not proffer any evidence that it held a subjective, good faith belief...more
5/18/2018
/ Ericsson ,
Evidence ,
FRAND ,
Good Faith ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jury Awards ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Payne reconsidered his previous March 2018 order which had vacated a jury award, and granted plaintiff Ericsson’s motion for reconsideration. The May ruling makes clear that the accused...more
5/16/2018
/ Contract Interpretation ,
Contract Negotiations ,
Ericsson ,
FRAND ,
Georgia Pacific ,
IP License ,
Jury Awards ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Royalties ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
Further to our ongoing coverage of post-TC Heartland patent litigation, in a recent case in the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted defendants’ motion to transfer for improper venue. In doing so, it rejected the...more
The Federal Circuit recently overturned a decision estopping the plaintiff from pursuing its infringement claims in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and clarified the effect of...more
On April 18, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that a litigation funding agreement destroyed standing for a complainant at the ITC. In Certain Audio...more
4/27/2018
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Article III ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Exclusive Licenses ,
Initial Determination (ID) ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
IP License ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Revenue Sharing ,
Standing