Neiman Marcus Files Suit Against “Doe No. 1” Seeking Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On April 30, 2013, Neiman Marcus filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit (available here) in the Northern District of Texas against “Doe No. 1.” Neiman Marcus filed its lawsuit after receiving a letter from IP Nav, who was acting as “Doe No. 1’s” agent. The letter from IP Nav allegedly “assert[ed] that Nieman Marchus infringes Defendant’s patents[.]” Specifically:

9. The letter states that IP Nav has been engaged by Defendant, an unnamed holder of “valuable patents in the field of automation of application programs.” IP Nav indicates that it has conducted an “analysis” of Neiman Marcus’s “products” and, if and only if a condition precedent is met, “intends to identify specific patents and provide information outlining the basis for any license under the patents.”

10. The letter demands that Neiman Marcus enter into discussions with IP Nav regarding a license agreement with Defendant. As a condition precedent to disclosing the identity of “specific patents,” the “basis for any license under the patents,” and Defendant’s “basic licensing structure,” the letter states that Neiman Marcus must sign the attached “Confidentiality and Forbearance Agreement” (hereinafter “the Agreement”).

Neiman Marcus seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe “Doe No. 1’s” patents.

Neiman Marcus is represented by Thomas Adair, Daniel Crowe, and Nick Williamson, all of Bryan Cave.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Neiman Marcus Files Suit Against “Doe No. 1” Seeking Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement

Judge Ferguson Dismisses Legal Malpractice Case Against Baker Botts for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On April 12, 2013, Judge Ferguson issued an Order (available here) holding that the Court lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction over Axcess International’s legal malpractice claim against Baker Botts, which was based, at least in part, on an allegation that Baker Botts had violated its ethical obligations imposed by the USPTO in representing Axcess International and one of Axcess International’s competitors in obtaining patents for RFIDs. The Order was based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gunn v. Minton, which we discussed here. Notably, Axcess International itself filed a motion to dismiss its own case, in order to preserve its right to sue in state court.

Axcess International is represented by Steven Aldous and Robert Varner, both of Braden Varner & Aldous.

Baker Botts is represented by Paul Koning and Brent Basden, both of Koning Rubarts LLP.

Posted in Judge Furgeson (Ret.) | Comments Off on Judge Ferguson Dismisses Legal Malpractice Case Against Baker Botts for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Judge Lynn Denies Autodesk’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On April 8, 2013, Judge Lynn entered an Order (available here) denying Autodesk’s motion for summary judgment. Autodesk had moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not infringe American Imaging’s patent, and that the patent was invalid and unenforceable.

Autodesk is represented by E. Leon Carter and J. Robert Arnett II, both of Carter Stafford Arnett Hamada & Mockler, PLLC; and Jeannine Sano, Eric Lancaster, Jason Xu, and James Gagen, all of White & Case LLP.

American Imaging is represented by Paul Storm and Sarah Paxon, both of Gardere Wynne Sweell LLP; and Jonathan Suder and Todd Blumenfeld, both of Friedman, Suder & Cooke.

Posted in Judge Lynn | Comments Off on Judge Lynn Denies Autodesk’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Shire Sues Neos In Northern District of Texas

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On April 11, 2013, Shire filed its patent infringement lawsuit (available here) against Neos for alleged infringement of U.S. Reissued Patent Nos. RE 42,096 and RE 41,148. Shire makes and sells ADDERALL XR, which it asserts embodies the patents-in-suit. Neos, according to Shire, submitted a new drug application, thereby infringing the patents-in-suit.

Shire is represented by Richard Sayles and Mark Strachan, both of Sayles Werbner, P.C.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on Shire Sues Neos In Northern District of Texas

Judge Ferguson Finds That General Electric Did Not Waive Privilege Through Its Corporate Counsel’s Trial Testimony

Posted on May 27, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On April 5, 2013, Judge Ferguson issued a thorough opinion (available here) finding that GE’s corporate counsel did not waive the attorney-client privilege during his trial testimony. The opinion is worth a read as it provides an in depth examination of privilege issues. Ultimately, Judge Ferguson held that, although GE’s corporate counsel disclosed certain details about his communications with outside counsel, as well as GE engineers’ contact with outside counsel, the testimony did “not constitute a waiver of privilege because the revelations are evidence from the face of the [patent-in-suit].”

GE is represented by Ray Guy, Anish Desai, Carmen Bremer, David Lender, and Eric Hochstadt, all of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP; and Andrew Brown, David Ball, Jr., Moses Silverman, and Nicholas Groombridge, all of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Mitsubishi is represented by Vic Henry and Lane Fletcher, both of Henry Oddo Austin & Fletcher; and Alice Loughran, Andrew Sloniewsky, Charles Cole, Emily Nestler, Filiberto Agusti, Houda Morad, Martin Schneiderman, Patricia Palacios, Seth Watkins, Shannen Coffin, Steven Barber, and Tremayne Norris, all of Steptoe & Johnson LLP; and Cortney Alexander, Gerald Ivey, Jeffrey Totten, Naoki Yoshida, Roger Taylor, Thomas Jenkins, Thomas Winland,  Tyler Akagi, and Virginia Carron, all of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP.

Posted in Judge Furgeson (Ret.) | Comments Off on Judge Ferguson Finds That General Electric Did Not Waive Privilege Through Its Corporate Counsel’s Trial Testimony

LT Tech Sues Frontrange Solutions For Patent Infringement In N.D. Tex.

Posted on May 25, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On May 20, 2013, LT Tech hit Frontrange Solutions with a complaint (available here) alleging that Frontrange infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,177,932, which claims technology relating to network based customer service.

LT Tech is represented by Hao Ni of Ni, Wang & Associates, PLLC; and Matthew DelGiorno, of DelGiorno IP Law, PLLC.

Posted in New Lawsuits Filed | Comments Off on LT Tech Sues Frontrange Solutions For Patent Infringement In N.D. Tex.

Judge Kinkeade Enters Default Judgment In Bitzer Case

Posted on May 25, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On May 22, 2013, Judge Kinkeade entered a Default Judgment (available here) in Bitzer’s favor against Beiging Brilliant Refrigeration Equipment Co. in a patent infringement lawsuit. The Default Judgment granted Bitzer’s request for a permanent injunction, and awarded costs and attorney’s fees of approximately $130,000. Judge Kinkeade found that $522/hour was a reasonable hourly rate.

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Judge Kinkeade | Comments Off on Judge Kinkeade Enters Default Judgment In Bitzer Case

Jury Awards $15 Million to Summit6 In Patent Infringement Case Against Samsung

Posted on April 6, 2013 by Steven Callahan

Yesterday, the jury in Summit6 v. Samsung returned with its verdict (available here (at the end of Judge O’Connor’s charge). The jury found that all of the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit were infringed by Samsung, none was invalid, and awarded $15 million in “lump sum” damages.

Summit 6 is represented by Theodore Stevenson, III, Ashley Moore, Douglas Cawley, James Quigley, John Campbell, Kathy Li, Kevin Burgess, Mitchell Sibley, Phillip Aurentz, and Richard Kamprath, all of McKool Smith, P.C.; and Bradley Caldwell, of Caldwell Cassady Curry, P.C.

Samsung is represented by Brian Erickson, Andrew Valentine, Chang Kim, Claudia Frost, Erik Fuehrer, James Nelson, Mark Fowler, and Todd Patterson, all of DLA Piper LLP.

Posted in Judge O'Connor, N.D. Tex. News | Comments Off on Jury Awards $15 Million to Summit6 In Patent Infringement Case Against Samsung

Judge O’Connor Tosses ICON’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Travelocity On Summary Judgment

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On February 22, 2013, Judge O’Connor issued a decision (available here) in ICON v. Travelocity. Judge O’Connor found that Travelocity’s website did not meet the “graphics items arranged to provide the appearance of at least part of a commercial area, at least some of the graphics items having the appearance of storefronts” limitation of the patent-in-suit.

ICON is represented by Guy Fisher, of Provost Umphrey; Erik Osterrieder, Guy Matthews, and Matthew Juren, all of Matthews Lawson, PLLC; Jim Flegle, of Loewinsohn Flegle Deary LLP; and John Cowart, of Shaw Cowart LLP.

Travelocity is represented by Neil McNabnay, Andrew Graben, Carl Bruce, David Conrad, Emily Falconer, Kristopher Long, Ricardo Bonilla, and Thomas Melsheimer, all of Fish & Richardson.

Posted in Judge O'Connor | Comments Off on Judge O’Connor Tosses ICON’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Travelocity On Summary Judgment

Verizon’s Motion to Dismiss Denied By Judge Lynn in Patent Infringement Case

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Steven Callahan

On March 6, 2013, Judge Lynn issued an Order (available here) in Mobile Enhancement Solutions v. Verizon. Verizon had filed a motion to dismiss MES’ induced infringement claim, arguing that “MES’s allegations, taken as true, do not establish that Verizon specifically intended to induce infringement, a requirement of the cause of action.”

In terms of knowledge that the induced act constitutes infringement, Judge Lynn held that “the allegations in the Amended Complaints—that Verizon continued to induce uses it had learned from the Original Complaint infringed Plaintiff’s patents—satisfy the knowledge requirement of an induced infringement claim.”

Judge Lynn also found that MES’ complaint’s allegations gave rise to a reasonable inference that Verizon intended its customers to infringe.

MES is represented by Edward Nelson, III, Brent Bumgardner, Christie Lindsey, Ryan Griffin, and Steven Hartsell, all of Nelson Bumgardner Casto PC.

Verizon is represented by Leon Carter, Robert Arnett, and Joshua Bennett, all of Carter Stafford Arnett Hamada & Mockler PLLC; and Caitlin Hall, John Rozendaal, and Michael Joffre, all of Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC.

Posted in Judge Lynn | Comments Off on Verizon’s Motion to Dismiss Denied By Judge Lynn in Patent Infringement Case