Eagle Harbor Holdings, LLC, et al v. Ford Motor Company, 3-11-cv-05503 (WAWD May 26, 2015, Order) (Settle, J.)
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Buying and Selling Intellectual Property Rights Constitutes “Financial Product or Service” for CBM Review
Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by Getty Images (US), Inc., CBM2015-00023 (PTAB May 21, 2015, Order) (Tierney, APJ)
Is the PTAB more likely to institute an IPR if the district court stays concurrent litigation?
A Docket Navigator subscriber recently asked us this question so we decided to investigate. As it turns out, there appears to be some correlation between a district court’s decision to stay a case pending IPR and the outcome of the PTAB’s institution decision. Click here to view a summary of our findings.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Smith & Nephew Incorporated, et al v. Arthrex, Incorporated, 3-04-cv-00029 (ORD May 19, 2015, Order) (Mosman, J.)
Friday, May 22, 2015
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:00 PM - 1:45 PM CDT
In this interactive webinar, users will learn how to find the answers to a list of questions that came up in the recent PTAB IP Counsel Exchange in San Jose, using Docket Navigator. Participants will gain practical knowledge about how to find PTAB information based on real data, removing the need to “guess” how the Board is interpreting current legal issues.
A list of questions that arose during the conference was created, and here are a few examples:
- What are the success rates of stays pending IPR or CBM in the district courts? Are stays more or less likely in “experienced” patent courts?
- How can I find PTAB decisions interpreting real parties-in-interest?
- How many patents have been cancelled by the new PTAB proceedings?
- How many times has unpatentable subject matter (USC §101) been granted (or denied) as a ground for trial in the PTAB?
- What district court cases have relied on the issue of unpatentable subject matter (USC §101) as a basis for a decision?
The “take away” after the webinar will be the full list of the questions that were addressed, including live links to the search results for each question. When a link is clicked on, the answers will be updated in real-time. Free passwords to Docket Navigator are available to all in-house counsel participants upon request.
Time will be reserved for Q&A at the conclusion of the panel.
PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., 5-11-cv-00761 (NYND May 20, 2015, Order) (Sharpe, J.)
Institution of IPR Excluded from Evidence
The court granted plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude evidence of the institution of inter partes review. "There is no claim that any relevant final decision has been made. Any probative value in the fact that [defendant] has chosen to take advantage of other avenues and forums is substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury and [a] waste of time involved in explaining to the jury what is involved in such proceedings and the natural counterclaim that that such proceedings are Defendants’ attempt to vexatiously delay and multiply proceedings and impose costs on Plaintiff."
Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc. et al, 9-13-cv-00102 (TXED May 18, 2015, Order) (Clark, J.)
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Neal Technologies Incorporated v. Innovative Performance Research LLC, 2-15-cv-00311 (AZD May 19, 2015, Order) (Bolton, J.)
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al, 1-09-cv-00080 (DED May 18, 2015, Order) (Stark, J.)