Website provides prima facie case for exercise of personal jurisdiction in a patent case

In determining whether a website provides sufficient minimum contacts for exercise of personal jurisdiction in a patent case, courts "must look to traditional sources of contract law" and "whether a website contains offers to sell infringing products is a fact intensive inquiry which must be done on a case by case basis." Where "the parties conceded that no one in the Eastern District of Texas had purchased an alleged infringing product through the defendant's website," the court nevertheless found a prima facie case of minimum contacts because "[defendant] used its website to sell the allegedly infringing products to customers. . . . [and the] website contained detailed product information and pricing information."

Invitrogen Corp. v. Evident Technologies, Inc., 6-08-cv-00163 (TXED October 29, 2008, Report & Recommendation).

Collateral estoppel invalidates patent claims based on jury finding of invalidity as to different claims of the same patents in earlier litigation

"[D]efensive collateral estoppel . . . extends to the unadjudicated claims in a patent to the extent that those unadjudicated claims present issues identical to the claims which were adjudicated and found invalid. Collateral estoppel applies to patent claims that were not previously adjudicated because the 'issues litigated, not the specific claims around which the issues were framed' are determinative. . . . [Further], if the claims are not identical but the difference is minor and not substantive, collateral estoppel will apply because, as with identical claims, the unadjudicated claims raise no new issues relating to invalidity based on obviousness."

CollegeNET, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 3-02-cv-00484 (ORD October 28, 2008, Opinion & Order).

Court rejects objection to discovery sanction based on prevailing counsel's billing rate

"[T]he Court does not find it unreasonable that [partners] and higher level associates would participate to some extent in ongoing discovery disputes and strategy related thereto, particularly since several of these disputes were aired before this Court, and the Court also does not find their billing rates [$630 for an attorney with 15 years experience, $455 for an attorney with 6 years experience, and $280 for an attorney with 1 year of experience] to be excessive in this context."

Matlink Inc. v. Home Depot Inc., 3-07-cv-01994 (CASD October 27, 2008, Order).

Flawed methodology precludes expert opinion on reasonable royalty

Plaintiff's damages expert was precluded from testifying concerning a reasonable royalty where he "use[d] a 25% rule to calculate a base royalty rate . . . adding or subtracting 1% to adjust for each Georgia- Pacific factor," but "stated at deposition that there was 'no particular reason' for choosing 1%." "[A] results-driven methodology with no rhyme or reason, which does not even take into account which Georgia-Pacific factors are most compelling, does not satisfy the strictures of Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702."

Mettler-Toledo, Inc v. Fairbanks Scales Inc., 9-06-cv-00097 (TXED October 27, 2008, Order)

Court declined to award enhanced damages despite “blatant” litigation misconduct

The court declined to award enhanced damages despite defense counsel’s “misconduct [that] was so blatant that it can only be characterized as directly disrespectful of the Court.” “I have never seen a jury display such an open dislike of counsel as in this case. By the end of the second trial, jurors were raising their hands, asking me to request counsel to stop his misconduct. . . . So, while there was a clear case of litigation misconduct, it may not have done plaintiffs any harm.”
Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., 3-04-cv-00029 (ORD October 23, 2008, Opinion & Order).