Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Holmes Group, Inc. v. RPS Products, Inc., 4-03-cv-40146 (MAD June 25, 2010, Memorandum & Order) (Saylor, J.)
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Middleton Inc. v. MN Mining and Mfg., 4-03-cv-40493 (IASD June 25, 2010, Order) (Gritzner, J.)
Monday, June 28, 2010
Discovery of Licensing Negotiations Occurring Outside of Litigation is Permitted, But Not Negotiations of Agreements That Settle Law Suits
Software Tree LLC v. Red Hat Inc. et al., 6-09-cv-00097 (TXED June 24, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Love, M.J.)
Friday, June 25, 2010
"Scrivener's Error" in Infringement Contentions Warrants Summary Judgment of Substantive Infringement Claim
Sybase, Inc. et al v. Data Retrieval Technology LLC et al., 3-08-cv-05481 (CAND June 23, 2010, Order) (Walker, J.)
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Custom Designs of Nashville, Inc. et al v. Alsa Corporation, 3-08-cv-00665 (TNMD June 21, 2010).
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Storage America, Inc. et al., 2-06-cv-00348 (TXED June 22, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Ward, J.)
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Simonian v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 1-10-cv-01306 (ILND June 17, 2010, Memorandum Opinion) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.)
Monday, June 21, 2010
NetDocket LLC has licensed patents and trademarks from WhitServe LLC and seeks to commercialize this technology in the legal market, particularly for intellectual property management.Inventor and patent litigator at St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens, Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr., is the founder of WhitServe LLC. In an earlier case against competitor Computer Packages, Inc. (“CPI”), filed in the District of Connecticut, WhitServe obtained an $8.3 Million verdict. However, WhitServe claims that it was precluded from seeking damages attributable to infringement by CPI’s customers. The new lawsuit reported in today’s Docket Report is WhitServe’s attempt to collect damages from those customers, including a number of law firms. From WhitServe’s complaint:
The company's online offering is unique because it allows participating law firms to private label the application for the benefit of their respective clients. Clients get the convenience of secure, 24/7 portfolio management while law firms significantly enhance their client services, without the costly investment of developing and maintaining the software, hardware, and skilled staff necessary.
During the course of the Connecticut litigation, WhitServe sought damages attributable to the law firms' service fees and the benefits derived by corporate users, since CPI is a joint tortfeasor with the law firms and corporations and jointly and severally liable for their infringement. Although CPI provides its clients with the EARS products, CPI sought to avoid its liability as a joint tortfeasor. Through motions to preclude, CPI sought to prevent WhitServe from introducing evidence of the law firms' revenue from their use of the EARS products on the grounds that the law firms' revenue far exceeded its own and CPI would not be willing to pay a royalty for the law firms' or corporations' use of EARS. The Connecticut court granted CPI's motion to preclude WhitServe from introducing evidence at trial regarding these revenues and benefits on the grounds that WhitServe did not rely on actual income figures from CPI's customers. Thus,WhitServe's damages associated with the law firms' and corporations' use of the EARS products was not resolved by the Connecticut litigation.While the Connecticut court did preclude evidence of CPI’s customer’s revenues, it appears there were multiple reasons for the ruling, not all of which are addressed in WhitServe’s new complaint. In particular, the Connecticut court observed during summary judgment that "damages based upon a percentage of both CPI's revenues and the revenues of CPI's customers might result in compensation greater than necessary to 'fully compensate' WhitServe for the infringement, and would thus be inappropriate." Then, in ruling on CPI’s motion to preclude such evidence at trial, the court explained, “having now heard evidence relating to the fees charged by those in the industry, the court concludes that the very specific evidence of CPI's revenues is sufficient to determine fair, just, and reasonable compensation in this case.”
Colorquick, LLC v. Fedex Office and Print Services, Inc., 6-09-cv-00572 (TXED June 17, 2010, Order) (Love, M.J.)
Friday, June 18, 2010
Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al v. Apotex Inc. et al., 1-07-cv-00779 (DED June 14, 2010, Memorandum Opinion) (Robinson, J.)
Trebor Industries, Inc. v. Regatta AS et al., 0-10-cv-60371 (FLSD June 14, 2010, Order) (Jordan, J.)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Difficulty Calculating Damages and Harm to Brand Goodwill Create Irreparable Harm Warranting Preliminary Injunction
Albany Molecular Research, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. et al., 2-09-cv-04638 (NJD June 14, 2010, Memorandum Opinion) (Brown, J.)
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
J. Blazed SKLO Podebrady S.I.O. et al v. Burton International Enterprises et al., 0-08-cv-02354 (DMN June 11, 2010, Order) (Mayeron, M.J.)
Monday, June 14, 2010
Graceway Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al v. Perrigo Company et al., 2-10-cv-00937 (NJD June 10, 2010, Opinion) (Martini, J.)
Friday, June 11, 2010
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Storage America, Inc. et al., 2-06-cv-00348 (TXED June 9, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Ward, J.)
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Federal Circuit Affirms Finding of No False Marking in Solo Cup Case by Justin Gray at the Gray On Claims blog
Will this curtail the infestation of dandelions? Federal Circuit decides the Solo cup false marking appeal by Woodrow Pollack at the Florida IP blog
And, yes, Judge Shadur followed his own self-imposed rules of professional writing. No sentence in the order started with “a” or “the”. Although “but” is apparently permissible.
“Just as it would not do for [defendant] to ‘put new wine into old bottles’ (Matthew 9:17), its current attempt to ‘put old wine into new bottles’ is equally improper.”
Meyer Intellectual Properties Limited et al v. Bodum, Inc. (1-06-cv-06329) ILND
Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge
Aventis CropScience v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl., Inc., et. al., 1-00-cv-00463 (NCMD June 8, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Beaty, J.)
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
WebMap Technologies LLC v. City Accomodations Network, Inc. et al., 2-09-cv-00343 (TXED June 7, 2010, Report and Recommendations) (Everingham, M.J.)
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
ITC Determination of Invalidity Does Not Relieve Obligations Under Earlier Settlement and Consent Decree Admitting Validity of Patent
Tillotson Corp. v. The Safety Zone, 4-06-cv-00242 (GAND June 4, 2010, Order) (Vining, J.)
Monday, June 7, 2010
Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. AOL, LLC. et al., 2-07-cv-00555 (TXED June 3, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Ward, J.)
Friday, June 4, 2010
Cook Inc. v. Endologix, Inc., 1-09-cv-01248 (INSD June 2, 2010, Order) (Baker, M.J.)
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Clayton v. Fisher-Price Inc., 2-09-cv-06891 (CACD June 1, 2010, Order) (Nguyen, J.)
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
ZOJO Solutions Inc. v. The Stanley Works, 1-10-cv-01175 (ILND May 27, 2010, Memorandum Order) (Shadur, J.)
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The expiration date of a U.S. Patent is not readily ascertainable by members of the public at the time of the product purchase. The patent number itself does not provide members of the public with the expiration date of the patent. Basic information about a patent, such as the filing, issue and priority dates associated with a particular U.S. patent number are available at, for example, the website of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). However, access to the Internet is necessary to retrieve that information (meaning that a consumer may not have the ability to retrieve the information, especially while he is in a store making a purchasing decision) and even after retrieving that information, it does not include the expiration date of a patent. Rather, a member of the public must also conduct a burdensome legal analysis, requiring specific knowledge of U.S. Patent laws regarding patent term expiration. Notably, a correct calculation of the expiration date must also account for at least: a) any term extensions granted by the USPTO, which may or may not be present on the face of the patent, and b) whether or not the patent owner has paid the necessary maintenance fees.
Simonian v. Novartis Animal Health US, Inc.,
Amended Complaint filed April 27, 2010.
The plaintiff following Mr. Simonian’s lead is Patent Group, LLC, the second most prolific plaintiff in false marking cases - a distant second to Simonian. Read the amended complaint here.
Incorporation in Forum State Shortly Before Filing Patent Infringement Lawsuit "has the Appearance of Forum Shopping"
In granting defendants' motion to transfer venue, the court rejected plaintiff's incorporation in Arkansas as a basis for retaining venue. "The only connection this case has to the Western District of Arkansas is that defendants sold the products in question [in this forum] for nationwide distribution and [plaintiff's] incorporation in Arkansas three weeks before filing suit. . . . [Plaintiff's] incorporation in Arkansas just twenty days before filing this lawsuit does not help [plaintiff] because it has the appearance of forum shopping. Indeed, defendants point to other instances where courts have transferred cases involving [plaintiff's parent's] subsidiaries because of suspicions of forum shopping."
Shared Memory Graphics, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al., 5-09-cv-05128 (ARWD May 27, 2010, Order) (Miller, J.)