Petition for Inter Partes Review by Space Exploration Technologies Corp., IPR2014-01378 (PTAB March 3, 2015, Order) (DeFranco, APJ)
Friday, March 6, 2015
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Clear With Computers, LLC v. Altec Industries, Inc., 6-14-cv-00079 (TXED March 3, 2015, Order) (Gilstrap, J.)
Success Rates of § 101 Challenges at the Pleading Stage
Traditionally, pre-trial challenges to the validity of patents were raised primarily in summary judgment motions, not in challenges to the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6) or a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Conventional wisdom dictated that, in most situations, a court could not address validity until after discovery and claim construction. Alice is changing that for validity challenges based on §101. During the four year period from 2008 to 2011, courts ruled on only seven such motions and granted two for a success rate of 28.6%. By 2014, courts ruled on 24 such motions and granted 13, for a success rate of 54.2%. In 2015 we’ve seen rulings on 9 motions and all but two were granted, for a success rate of 77%. To view a Motion Success Report showing the success rates and outcomes of these motions since 2008, click here.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Assertion of Patent Claims After Unfavorable Claim Construction of Related Patents Warrants § 285 Attorney Fee Award
TechRadium Inc v. FirstCall Network, Inc., 4-13-cv-02487 (TXSD February 27, 2015, Order) (Rosenthal, J.)
Success Rates of Motions for Attorney Fees Under 35 USC § 285
Since 2008, U.S. district courts have ruled on 924 motions for attorney fees under 35 USC § 285. About 60% were denied each year, with the exception of 2013 when the denial rate increased to 67%. It appears Octane Fitness and Highmark may be changing that. Last year only 57.6% were denied and the denial rate in 2015 to date is only 48%.
Click here to view a Motion Success Report showing all outcomes of motions for attorney fees since 2008. Using the filters on the left side of the page, you can modify the report to focus on a specific court or judge. You can also print the report in PDF format by clicking the printer icon.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 1-10-cv-11571 (MAD February 27, 2015, Order) (Zobel, J.)
Monday, March 2, 2015
Stay Pending IPR Conditioned on Defendants’ Stipulation to § 315(e) Estoppel Even in the Event of Withdrawal
CTP Innovations LLC v. EBSCO Industries Inc., 1-14-cv-03884 (MDD February 25, 2015, Order) (Garbis, J.)
Conditions of Stays Pending IPR, CBM and PGR
Since the creation of new post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. district courts have ruled on 617 motions to stay pending inter partes review (IPR), covered business method review (CBM), and post-grant review (PGR). Most of those rulings either granted or denied a stay. However, in 27 rulings, courts granted the stay upon certain conditions, the most common of which was defendants’ agreement to 35 USC § 315(e) estoppel. In some cases, the stipulated estoppel was weaker than estoppel under § 315(e). In other cases, stay was conditioned on the PTAB reaching certain determinations that might impact the litigation. To view all orders granting stays upon certain conditions, click here.
Friday, February 27, 2015
James Sung et al v. Shinhan Diamond America, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-00530 (CACD February 25, 2015, Order) (Fitzgerald, J.)
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 1-11-cv-00908 (DED February 24, 2015, Order) (Robinson, J.)