Etagz, Inc. v. Quiksilver, Inc., 8-10-cv-00300 (CACD September 26, 2012, Order) (Goldman, M.J.).
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Alleging “Selective Disclosure” of Prior Art Reference is Sufficient to Plead Intent to Deceive Element of Inequitable Conduct Claim
Industrial Technology Research Institute v. LG Corporation, et. al., 2-12-cv-00929 (NJD September 25, 2012, Order) (Linares, J.).
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Incorporated, et. al., 1-10-cv-00812 (DED September 24, 2012, Order) (Andrews, J.).
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
35 U.S.C. §285 Permits Attorneys’ Fee Award for Post-Settlement Conduct “Intertwined” with Patent Issues
Fitness IQ, LLC v. TV Products USA, Inc., 3-10-cv-02584 (CASD September 14, 2012, Order) (McCurine, M.J.).
Monday, September 24, 2012
Failure to Dismiss Case After Unfavorable Claim Construction Rendered Case Exceptional Warranting Attorneys’ Fees
Spectros Corp. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., 4-09-cv-01996 (CAND September 17, 2012, Order) (Vadas, M.J.).
Friday, September 21, 2012
Vacation Exchange, LLC v. Wyndham Exchange and Rentals, Inc., et. al., 2-12-cv-04229 (CACD September 18, 2012, Order) (Klausner, J.).
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Claim Preclusion Bars Second Lawsuit Asserting Newly Issued Reexamination Claims Against Previously Accused Products
Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et. al. v. Apotex Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-01171 (DED September 17, 2012, Order) (Robinson, J.).
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Preliminary Injunction Prohibiting Sale of Galaxy Tab Survives Despite Jury Verdict of Noninfringement
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et. al., 5-11-cv-01846 (CAND September 17, 2012, Order) (Koh, J.).
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Cease & Desist Letter Lacking Charge of Infringement did not Create Substantial Controversy Sufficient for Declaratory Relief Claim
Unisense Fertilitech A/S, et. al. v. Auxogyn, Inc., et. al., 4-11-cv-05065 (CAND September 14, 2012, Order) (Rogers, J.).
Monday, September 17, 2012
$50 Million Verdict Overturned Because Plaintiff Failed to Prove Infringing Products Were Made or Imported Into the United States
Promega Corporation, et. al. v. Life Technologies Corporation, 3-10-cv-00281 (WIWD September 13, 2012, Order) (Crabb, J.).
Friday, September 14, 2012
Should a Challenge to a Patent’s Validity Based on Claiming Unpatentable Subject Matter (i.e., Bilski) be Addressed at the Pleading Stage?
The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's infringement claim for failure to state a claim where the court determined plaintiff's automatic pricing patent covered ineligible subject matter despite plaintiff's argument the issue was premature. "Plaintiff argues that it is premature to consider Defendant’s eligibility challenges to the patent because the Court has yet to construe any of the claim elements. . . . However, Plaintiff fails to explain how claims construction would materially impact the [35 U.S.C. § 101] analysis in the instant case. . . . [The Federal Circuit] confirmed that it 'has never set forth a bright line rule requiring district courts to construe claims before determining subject matter eligibility'. . . ."
OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 3-12-cv-01233 (CAND September 11, 2012, Order) (Chen, J.).
No. The court denied without prejudice defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's infringement action for failure to state a claim due to lack of patentable subject matter. "[Defendant] argues that the patents-in-suit do not claim patent eligible subject matter and are thus, invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. . . . The Federal Circuit has held that claim construction is an important first step in any § 101 analysis. The Court agrees that claim construction briefing, along with supporting evidence, may be necessary to determine whether the patents-in-suit contain patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice."
Phoenix Licensing, LLC, et. al. v. Aetna Inc., et. al., 2-11-cv-00285 (TXED September 12, 2012, Order) (Gilstrap, J.).
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Invalidation of Patent on Reexamination Warrants Relief from Judgment of Infringement, Including Injunction and Monetary Award
Flexiteek Americas, Inc., et. al. v. Plasteak, Inc., et. al., 0-08-cv-60996 (FLSD September 10, 2012, Order) (Seltzer, M.J.).
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Formax Inc. v. Alkar-RapidPak-MP Equipment Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-00298 (WIED September 10, 2012, Order) (Griesbach, J.).
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
“Evolving” Laws at Time of Infringement Preclude Finding of Willful Infringement and Award of Enhanced Damages or Attorneys’ Fees
Monsanto Company v. Scruggs, et. al., 3-00-cv-00161 (MSND September 7, 2012, Order) (Mills, J.).
Monday, September 10, 2012
Defendant Sanctioned for Document Dump has “Chutzpa” to Blame Plaintiff for Reviewing Documents too Slowly
Aviva Sports, Inc. v. Fingerhut Direct Marketing, Inc., et. al., 0-09-cv-01091 (MND September 6, 2012, Order) (Mayeron, M.J.).
Friday, September 7, 2012
Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, 1-12-cv-00462 (DED August 30, 2012, Order) (Sleet, J.).
Thursday, September 6, 2012
CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Loopnet, Inc., 2-12-cv-00002 (VAED August 30, 2012, Order) (Davis, J.).
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Alleging Infringement by “At Least” Certain Products was “Deliberately Vague” and Failed to State a Claim of Infringement
Radiation Stabilization Solutions LLC v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-07701 (ILND August 28, 2012, Order) (Kendall, J.).
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Video Displays and Products Using and Containing Same, 337-TA-828 (ITC August 27, 2012, Order) (Essex, ALJ).