On May 17, 2013, Wireless Mobile Devices (WMD) filed its lawsuit (available here) against, among others, AT&T and Verizon. WMD claims that AT&T and Verizon infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 6,560,604; 7,082,365; 7,856,315; and 7,321,826. The patents-in-suit claim technology related to mobile devices.
WMD is represented by Barry Bumgardner of Nelson Bumgardner Casto, P.C.
On May 13, 2013, the Supreme Court decide Bowman v. Monsanto (decision available here). The Supreme Court unanimously held that an authorized sale of a patented seed does not authorize the buyer of the seed to reproduce the seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission.
Given the unique nature of the article in question (self-replicating seeds), it is not expected that this decision will have far reaching consequences.
On May 6, 2013, in the Northern District of Texas, Placemark filed a patent infringement lawsuit (available here) against Prudential. Placemark claims that Prudential infringes Placemark’s U.S. Patent No. 7,668,773, which claims technology relating to portfolio management.
Placemark is represented by Steven Bauer, Safraz Ishmael, and Gourdin Sirles, all of Proskauer Rose LLP.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
