Baltimore Aircoil Company, Inc. v. SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., 1-13-cv-02053 (MDD August 22, 2016, Order) (Blake, USDJ)
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Expert’s Royalty Rate Testimony Excluded for Failing to Calculate Starting Point for Georgia Pacific Analysis
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., 1-13-cv-01973 (DED August 25, 2016, Order) (Sleet, USDJ)
Monday, August 29, 2016
MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corporation, 1-13-cv-00304 (DED August 25, 2016, Order) (Stark, USDJ)
Friday, August 26, 2016
Patent for Storing and Retrieving Transaction Information Via Nonpredictable Barcode Not Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. J Crew Group, Inc., 6-16-cv-00196 (TXED August 24, 2016, Order) (Gilstrap, USDJ)
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Expert’s Unsupported Use of Windows Mobile as Proxy for Valuing Accused Android OS Justifies New Damages Trial
Core Wireless Licensing SARLl v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-00911 (TXED August 23, 2016, Order) (Gilstrap, USDJ)
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Defendant’s Knowledge of Notice of Allowance Alone Does Not Support Jury Finding of Willful Infringement
Radware, LTD. et al v. F5 Networks, Inc., 5-13-cv-02024 (CAND August 22, 2016, Order) (Whyte, USDJ)
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
A plaintiff’s choice of venue in patent infringement cases is defined by Section 1400(b) of U.S. Code Title 28, which states that civil actions for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the defendant has committed infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Because patent infringement plaintiffs can bring action in a venue where the defendant is doing business and not where it is headquartered, both the cost and inconvenience of defending a case in a distant venue may be reason enough for file a motion for a transfer of venue.
Legal teams preparing a defense for a party in a patent infringement suit filed in E.D. Tex. might find effective strategies for arguing a transfer of venue by investigating what has worked for others in the past. It’s not that rare to find cases in E.D. Tex. which have seen a motion to transfer venue granted.
As of this writing, in 2016 alone, there have been nearly 50 patent infringement cases which have been transferred out of E.D. Tex., with 19 of those cases ending up in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.).
One such case which was successfully transferred is Game and Technology Co. Ltd. vs. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al. Game and Technology Co. brought suit against Blizzard and others, including Valve Corporation and RIOT Games, in E.D. Tex. over a trio of patents related to video gaming and online gameplay. The court granted the motion to transfer venue based on the fact that the relevant evidence and witnesses were more easily found in the districts identified by the defendants. Blizzard does business in the area covered by E.D. Tex. but the primary function of that office was customer support. The cases involving Blizzard and RIOT were directed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.), while Valve’s case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (W.D. Wash.).
Another E.D. Tex. case in which the defense’s motion to transfer venue was successful is Intelligent Automation Design, LLC vs. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. et al. The patent-in-suit protects a method of controlling how screws are seated to prevent them from becoming stripped. Biomet Microfixation, one of the case’s defendants, petitioned for a transfer of venue based upon the fact that a previous case involving a Zimmer company was transferred out of E.D. Tex. for convenience. Biomet Microfixation also noted that it has no offices or facilities in Texas as well as the fact that the accused system was developed in the Kansas City region. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (M.D. Fla.), which is where Biomet Microfixation’s headquarters are located.
There are dozens of recent patent infringement cases which legal teams can analyze to determine successful strategies for motions to transfer venue. Docket Navigator gives attorneys the analytical tools they need to quickly find granted motions regardless of the district court within which the case was originally filed.
Charts made using Docket Navigator's data.
This guest post was written by Steve Brachmann.
Robertson Transformer Co. v. General Electric Company, et al, 1-12-cv-08094 (ILND August 19, 2016, Order) (Bucklo, USDJ)
Monday, August 22, 2016
Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by Google Inc., CBM2015-00071 (PTAB August 18, 2016, Order) (Chung, APJ)
Friday, August 19, 2016
Willful Infringement Following Six-Year Period of Intervening Rights Does Not Justify Enhanced Damages
Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp., 3-14-cv-02061 (CASD August 17, 2016, Order) (Huff, USDJ)
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Mantissa Coporation v. Ondot Systems, Inc. et al, 4-15-cv-01133 (TXSD August 11, 2016, Order) (Ellison, USDJ)
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Expert’s Reasonable Royalty Testimony Excluded for Double Counting Revenue Attributable to Accused Features
Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 3-14-cv-01197 (CAND August 15, 2016, Order) (Orrick, USDJ)
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
POWERbahn, LLC v. Foundation Fitness, LLC et al, 3-15-cv-00327 (NVD August 11, 2016, Order) (Du, USDJ)
Monday, August 15, 2016
Wearable Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, 337-TA-973 (ITC August 9, 2016, Order) (Pender, ALJ)
Friday, August 12, 2016
Certusview Technologies, LLC v. S & N Locating Services, LLC et al, 2-13-cv-00346 (VAED August 10, 2016, Order) (Davis, USDJ)
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Question of Whether Court May Convert Jury’s Lump Sum Royalty to Running Royalty Via Remittitur Certified for Appeal
Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et al, 1-12-cv-11935 (MAD August 9, 2016, Order) (Saris, USDJ)
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Core Wireless Licensing SARLl v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, 2-14-cv-00911 (TXED August 8, 2016, Order) (Payne, M.J.)
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Amgen Inc. et al v. Hospira, Inc., 1-15-cv-00839 (DED August 5, 2016, Order) (Andrews, J.)
Monday, August 8, 2016
Attorney Fees Awarded for Plaintiff’s Continued Prosecution of Infringement Claim Despite Clear 28 U.S.C. § 1498 Defense
Astornet Technologies Inc. v. BAE Systems, Inc. et al, 8-14-cv-00245 (MDD August 4, 2016, Order) (Titus, J.)
Friday, August 5, 2016
Motion-Triggered Multimedia Indexing Patent Not Directed to Ineligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 1-15-cv-08814 (NYSD August 3, 2016, Order) (Forrest, J.)
Thursday, August 4, 2016
VideoShare, LLC v Google Inc. et al, 1-13-cv-00990 (DED August 2, 2016, Order) (Sleet, J.)
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by Southside Bancshares, Inc., CBM2016-00026 (PTAB August 1, 2016, Order) (Bisk, APJ)
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Chrimar Systems, Inc. d/b/a CMS Technologies et al v. Alcatel Alsthom SA et al, 6-15-cv-00163 (TXED July 29, 2016, Order) (Love, M.J.)
Monday, August 1, 2016
Kahr v. Cole et al, 1-13-cv-01005 (WIED July 28, 2016, Order) (Griesbach, J.)