IP Newsflash - May 2015 #4

by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Contact

DISTRICT COURT CASES

Eastern District of Virginia Grants Summary Judgment of Noninfringement to Adobe

On May 7, 2015, Judge Brinkema of the United States district court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment of noninfringement to Adobe Systems, Inc., holding that Adobe’s Acrobat software does not infringe four data encryption patents held by plaintiff TecSec Inc.

TecSec filed its patent infringement lawsuit in February 2010 against 13 separate defendant groups, including Adobe, IBM, SAP AG, Cisco Systems, Oracle, EBay and PayPal, asserting infringement of 11 patents with a total of 380 claims in the field of computer encryption. Earlier in the case, the court stayed proceedings against all defendants except IBM.

After lengthy discovery, including IBM’s production of 7 million pages of documents, 40 depositions and 55 customer subpoenas, IBM moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that TecSec’s claims failed as a matter of law because the products did not perform every step of the asserted method patents and that it never sold products that used the entire system claimed by the patents. The court granted IBM’s motion in March 2011. The court’s summary judgment was appealed and then affirmed in part on appeal.

Adobe then moved for summary judgment in October 2014. In granting the motion, the court held that Acrobat’s Adobe software does not infringe TecSec’s patents because Adobe generates encryption dictionaries differently. Specifically, the court held, “TecSec has not raised a genuine dispute of material fact establishing that Acrobat performs the required ‘selecting’ step because it is undisputed that a user of Acrobat does not select the encryption dictionary.”

TecSec, Inc. v. IBM Corp., case number 10-dv-00115 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia).

- Author: David C. Lawrence

Court Finds Amount Defendant Spent on Attorneys and Experts in Litigation Relevant to Calculating a Reasonable Royalty

On May 15, 2015, a court in the District of Minnesota denied defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the amounts defendant paid to its opinion counsel, experts, and trial counsel. The plaintiffs argued that the amount of money the defendant was willing to pay its expert witnesses and attorneys was relevant to the calculation of a reasonable royalty, and the court agreed. Specifically, the court found that “post-hypothetical negotiation information regarding the amount of money spent to investigate and defend the ability to continue to market the accused product without obtaining a license is relevant to the calculation of a reasonable royalty and may be presented to the jury.” In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on Georgia-Pacific factor 15, which relates to the value a patentee and accused infringer would place on granting or obtaining a hypothetical license. In addition, the court equated the challenged evidence to other post-hypothetical negotiation information that the defendant had argued was relevant, namely, the profitability of the accused device and the extent of the alleged infringer’s sales.

Ecolab USA Inc. v. Diversey, Inc., 12-CV-1984 (D. Minn. May 15, 2015) (Nelson, S.).

- Author: Dan Moffett

Defendants Win Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Issue Preclusion, Claim Preclusion, and the Kessler Doctrine

Defendants obtained another favorable decision on summary judgment for AT&T in a patent infringement case against Adaptix. Magistrate Judge Craven issued proposed findings and recommendations granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment that Adaptix is precluded from asserting method claims of the ’212 patent against essentially the same handsets that were litigated by Adaptix in a case in California. In the Northern District of California, Judge Grewal previously found that the defendants did not directly infringe the asserted claims. 

The defendants in this case include AT&T and Verizon (the “carrier defendants”), and LG and Pantech (the “manufacturer defendants”). All defendants argued on summary judgment that issue preclusion bars Adaptix from arguing that defendants directly infringe the method claims of the ’212 patent by (1) selling LTE devices or (2) by controlling the use their respective customers’ LTE devices. The defendants argued that these issues were already litigated in the California cases. Judge Craven agreed and recommended that issue preclusion bar Adaptix from making these arguments.

The carrier defendants also asserted that Adaptix’s claims are independently barred by claim preclusion and the Kessler Doctrine. Defendants argued Adaptix should not be able to make the same argument that the accused 4G LTE devices, which are “essentially the same” as the devices at issue in the California cases, infringe the same patents based on the same LTE industry standard. Adaptix argued that the causes of action are different because the California actions involved Apple and HTC devices, while the present case involves LG and Pantech products. Judge Craven reasoned that both cases involve the same patent and that Adaptix’s infringement theory based on the LTE industry standard is the same in both sets of cases. Judge Craven explained that although the accused devices do not completely overlap, based on Adaptix’s infringement contentions, the accused devices are materially identical to those in the California case. The court also noted that any causes of action that arose after Judge Grewal’s decision are also barred by claim preclusion.

Judge Craven likewise found that Adaptix’s claims against the carrier defendants were barred by the Kessler doctrine because the defendants had already obtained the status of a noninfringer based on the California case.

Finally, Judge Craven recommended that the manufacturer defendant’s summary judgment of no contributory infringement should be granted because based on the claim preclusion and Kessler doctrine findings, there is no underlying direct infringement.

Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., C. A. No. 6:12-cv-17, Doc. No. 363 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2015).

- Author: Ashley Brown

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Contact
more
less

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.