N.D.Pa.L.

Northern district patent litigation blog

Blog Authors

Latest from N.D.Pa.L.

N.D.Pa.L.

In Denying Motion to Strike Expert Report for Disclosing Infringement Theory Absent from Infringement Contentions, Court Notes that Defendant “Never Challenged Those Contentions as Inadequate”

By NDPaL Blog Team on June 18, 2019

A party that stayed silent when served deficient infringement contentions has its silence held against it when later accusing the opposition of not making its case. MLC Intellectual Property, LLC (“MLC”) sued Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) in August 2014 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 (“’571 Patent”), which claims a non-volatile memory device. MLC is accusing Micron’s flash memory devices. The case is pending before Judge Susan Illston. In an Order issued on April…

N.D.Pa.L.

Cooling Technology Competitor Suit Winds Down

By NDPaL Blog Team on June 12, 2019

In an omnibus decision issued March 15, 2019, Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Asia Vital Component Co., Ltd.’s (“AVC’s”) motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement and Defendant/Counter-Claimant Asetek Danmark A/S’s (“Asetek’s”) motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity and motions to strike expert reports and declarations. AVC is a Taiwan-based manufacturer of fan coolers and heat sinks for CPUs, laptops, and personal computers.[1] Defendant Asetek is a Danish company credited with popularizing…

N.D.Pa.L.

Stays Pending IPR: The State of Discovery is Paramount

By NDPaL Blog Team on May 10, 2019

Two orders recently issued regarding whether district court litigation should be stayed pending inter partes review. In both cases, the IPR petition had been filed recently, and the institution decision had not yet issued—but the results could not have been more different. Judge Tigar granted a stay in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-06739, “Uniloc”). Two floors down, Judge Orrick went the other way in J & K IP Assets,…

N.D.Pa.L.

Half-Hearted Defense Resulted in High Attorneys’ Fees Award Following Default Judgment

By NDPaL Blog Team on May 10, 2019

Defendant Shine Bathrooms had already been hit with an order for default judgment and double damages in a patent case brought by Robern, Inc. And the hits keep coming for Shine, as it was recently ordered to pay over $250,000 in attorneys’ fees under the “exceptional case” standard of 35 U.S.C. § 285. Notably, Judge Seeborg awarded attorneys’ fees even though there had been no explicit finding of willfulness. The opinion explains the relationship between willfulness…

N.D.Pa.L.

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-AEO Designation Ruled Adequate Protection for Non-Parties

By NDPaL Blog Team on May 9, 2019

The BRAF gene helps human cells produce enzymes for cellular metabolism and growth. Mutated BRAF genes contribute to the proliferation of cancer cells. In 2005, Plaintiff Plexxicon Inc. began making compounds that reduce the growth of cancer cells that have the mutated BRAF gene.[1] The core compound, vemurafenib, was tested in patients with metastatic melanoma with results such as those illustrated in the before-and-after picture shown at right.[2] Vemurafenib, sold under the brand name Zelboraf®,…

N.D.Pa.L.

Welcome to the Northern District of California Patent Law Blog

By NDPaL Blog Team on April 22, 2019

We are proud to present the Northern District of California Patent Law Blog (N.D.Pa.L. Blog), which will address substantive and procedural developments specific to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California related to patent law. Written by a team of patent litigators with extensive experience in the Northern District of California, the blog provides on-the-ground insights on significant hearings and rulings that are key for attorneys practicing in the district. The blog…

N.D.Pa.L.

Patentee Allowed to Amend Infringement Contentions, but Must Pay for “Honest Mistake”

By NDPaL Blog Team on April 18, 2019

In early 2018, Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. (“Simpson”) filed a declaratory judgement action against Defendant-Patentee OZ-Post International, LLC (“OZCO”). Simpson had received a “demand letter” from OZCO that identified Simpson’s Outdoor Accents structural wood screw and hex-head washer ([1], [2]): …

N.D.Pa.L.

One Thing That TC Heartland Didn’t Change: The Alien-Venue Rule

By NDPaL Blog Team on March 1, 2019

It is a “well-established rule that suits against alien defendants are outside the operation of the federal venue laws.”[1] Judge Gilliam stopped a declaratory judgment plaintiff’s attempt to initiate a parallel lawsuit in California when only the plaintiff’s foreign parent was sued in Texas. AU Optronics Corporation (“AUO”) was formed in 2001 in Taiwan when Acer Display Technology, Inc. merged with Unipac Optoelectronics Corporation. In 2002, AUO was listed at the New York Stock Exchange, becoming the first manufacturer of pure…

N.D.Pa.L.

WOSS Fitness Bands Suffer Post-Trial Pain

By NDPaL Blog Team on November 20, 2018

After a jury verdict of willful infringement, almost $6,000,000 in patent-related damages, and a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Judge Freeman increased WOSS’s legal troubles by granting TRX’s motions for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.[1] Enhanced Damages. Judge Freeman first granted TRX’s request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 given its egregious behavior. In making her determination, Judge Freeman considered the Read factors[2] and WOSS’s subjective intent. At trial, the jury found that WOSS willfully…

N.D.Pa.L.

Invalidity Ruling Withdrawn After Second Look, Two Years Later

By NDPaL Blog Team on October 25, 2018

In an unusual sequence of events, Judge Freeman reconsidered and withdrew her previous ruling that plaintiff Fitness Anywhere LLC’s (“TRX”) Patent No. 7,806,814 (“’814 Patent”) was invalid. TRX accused defendant Woss Enterprises LLC’s (“Woss”) of infringing the ’814 Patent via sales of Woss’s resistant exercise bands. In August 2016, Judge Freeman granted Woss’s motion for summary judgment that the ’814 Patent was invalid as obvious in light of U.S. Patent No. 7,044,896 (“’896 Patent”) and…

N.D.Pa.L.

Northern district patent litigation blog

Blog Authors

In Denying Motion to Strike Expert Report for Disclosing Infringement Theory Absent from Infringement Contentions, Court Notes that Defendant “Never Challenged Those Contentions as Inadequate”

Cooling Technology Competitor Suit Winds Down

Stays Pending IPR: The State of Discovery is Paramount

Half-Hearted Defense Resulted in High Attorneys’ Fees Award Following Default Judgment

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-AEO Designation Ruled Adequate Protection for Non-Parties

Welcome to the Northern District of California Patent Law Blog

Patentee Allowed to Amend Infringement Contentions, but Must Pay for “Honest Mistake”

One Thing That TC Heartland Didn’t Change: The Alien-Venue Rule

WOSS Fitness Bands Suffer Post-Trial Pain

Invalidity Ruling Withdrawn After Second Look, Two Years Later

Company

Support

New to the Network