Judge Lynn Transfers Case To District of Minnesota

Posted on November 23, 2015 by Steven Callahan

On November 3, 2015, Judge Lynn entered an Order (available here) in Raz Imports v. Luminara Worldwide transferring the case to the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs had filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against the defendant one day after receiving the defendant’s cease and desist letter. Judge Lynn applied the Federal Circuit law on the “first-to-file” rule and found that the case was an anticipatory action. The Court then applied the Section 1404(a) transfer factors and ultimately decided that the case should be transferred to Minnesota.

Posted in Judge Lynn | Comments Off on Judge Lynn Transfers Case To District of Minnesota

Federal Circuit Says Laches Defense Still Applicable To Patent Cases

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

On Friday, a fractured Federal Circuit issued its decision in SCA Hygiene v. First Quality Baby Products (available here). The Federal Circuit sat en banc and held that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s Petrella decision (which I discussed here), laches is still an available defense in patent infringement cases because, unlike in the Copyright Act, “Congress codified a laches defense in 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(1) that may bar legal remedies.” Additionally, the Federal Circuit held that laches may also bar prospective relief (i.e., injunctive relief and ongoing royalties). A laches defense may affect ongoing royalties, but only “in extraordinary circumstances.”

Posted in Developing Law, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals | Comments Off on Federal Circuit Says Laches Defense Still Applicable To Patent Cases

Facebook Patent Case Transferred to Northern District of California

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

Judge Kinkeade issued an Order (available here) transferring Word to Info’s (“WTI”) patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook to the Northern District of California. Notably, WTI is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas, and the sole inventor of the seven patents-in-suit lives in Richardson, Texas.

Posted in Judge Kinkeade | Comments Off on Facebook Patent Case Transferred to Northern District of California

Judge O’Connor Denies Motion To Stay Case Pending IPR

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

In Summit 6 v. HTC, defendants sought to stay the case pending the PTAB’s inter partes review concerning the patents-in-suit. Judge O’Connor denied defendants’ motion to stay (decision available here), noting in the process that the PTAB had not instituted the proceedings, discovery closed in one month, claim construction briefing had closed, and trial was set for the year’s end.

Posted in Judge O'Connor | Comments Off on Judge O’Connor Denies Motion To Stay Case Pending IPR

File Your Motions To Compel Prior To The Close Of Discovery

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

Judge O’Connor issued an Order (available here) in Williams-Pyro v. Warren Watts Technology denying a motion to compel because it was not filed during the discovery period. Judge O’Connor stated: “Motions to compel are untimely if filed after the deadline for completion of discovery.” Although there are exceptions to this general rule, Judge O’Connor found that none of the exceptions applied (discovery had closed approximately one year prior to the motion and the case was on the eve of trial).

Posted in Judge O'Connor, Practice Tips | Comments Off on File Your Motions To Compel Prior To The Close Of Discovery

New Patent Cases

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

Three new patent infringement cases have been filed recently: (i) Hawk Technology Systems v. Galleria Mall (complaint available here); (ii) T&CO Energy Services v. TexStarr Solutions (complaint available here); and (iii) Gourley v. Bluelounge Distribution (complaint available here).

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on New Patent Cases

Judge O’Connor Denies Alice Motion For Judgment On Pleadings

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

Judge O’Connor issued an Order in Summit 6 v. HTC (available here) rejecting defendants’ Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment On The Pleadings. Judge O’Connor found that the patents-in-suit were not invalid under the Supreme Court’s Alice decision.

Posted in Judge O'Connor | Comments Off on Judge O’Connor Denies Alice Motion For Judgment On Pleadings

Recent Claim Construction Decisions

Posted on September 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

Judge Godbey issued claim construction decisions in Mannatech v. Wellness Qwest (available here) and Lakesouth Holdings v. Ace Evert (available here); and Judge Lynn issued claim construction decisions in Katch Kan v. Can-OK Oil Field Services (available here) and Sorkin v. Vstructural, LLC (available here).

Posted in Judge Godbey (Chief Judge), Judge Lynn | Comments Off on Recent Claim Construction Decisions

Judge Lynn Invalidates BASCOM’s Patent Under Alice

Posted on July 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

On May 15, 2015, Judge Lynn issued an extensive Order (available here) finding that BASCOM’s patent asserted against AT&T was invalid for claiming unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Supreme Court’s recent Alice opinion (which I discussed here). Accordingly, Judge Lynn granted AT&T’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Posted in Judge Lynn | Comments Off on Judge Lynn Invalidates BASCOM’s Patent Under Alice

Recent MTel Decisions

Posted on July 21, 2015 by Steven Callahan

There have recently been three decisions of note in the Mobile Telecommunications v. Blackberry patent infringement case. First, Judge Lynn granted Blackberry’s motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions (decision available here). Second, Judge Lynn issued a sixty-five page claim construction opinion (available here). Third, Magistrate Judge Toliver issued an order (available here) granting in part MTel’s motion to compel. Of note, Judge Toliver determined that MTel was not entitled to obtain certain prior litigation materials, as the patents-in-suit in such earlier litigations “are entirely different from the patents-in-suit [in the instant litigation] and do not concern the same or comparable functionalities as the patents-in-suit.” Judge Toliver also determined that a party need not seek leave of court to depose a corporate deponent under Rule 30(b)(6) for an additional time, so long as the new deposition topics are different from those previously noticed.

Posted in Judge Lynn, Magistrate Judge Toliver | Comments Off on Recent MTel Decisions