Defendants' Delay Sinks Bid to Stay Pending Reexam

The court denied defendant's motion to stay pending reexamination even though a parallel lawsuit involving the same patents was stayed pending reexamination. "[Defendant] unreasonably delayed in seeking a stay, causing undue prejudice to [plaintiff]. . . . [Defendant] waited approximately ten months [after the reexamination requests for two of the six patents-in-suit were granted] to request a stay in this case. During that time, [plaintiff] prepared for and participated in a tutorial and claim construction hearing, noticed or defended 50 depositions, filed or responded to more than twenty briefs relating to [defendant's] failed transfer motion and [defendant's] multiple motions to amend its invalidity contentions, pursued fact discovery, and is now conducting expert discovery. . . . For these reasons, the Court finds a stay at this time would be highly prejudicial to [plaintiff] and would waste the time, effort, and expense expended by [plaintiff] since the reexaminations were filed."

Motorola Inc. v. Vtech Communications, Inc. et al., 5-07-cv-00171
(TXED November 17, 2009, Order) (Craven, M.J.)

Court Strikes Summary Judgment Motions Sua Sponte for Circumventing Page Limits Rule

Sua sponte, the court struck plaintiff's four summary judgment motions. "Local Rule 7-2(b) provides that a motion may not exceed twenty-five pages in length. . . . In an attempt to circumvent the page limits imposed by the Local Rules, [plaintiff] filed four Summary Judgment Motions, which collectively total fifty-nine pages in length. While each motion purports to address different issues, all of the motions pertain to the same patents-in-suit and should therefore have been presented in a single motion."

Aircraft Technical Publishers, Inc. v. Avantext, Inc., 4-07-cv-04154
(CAND November 16, 2009, Order) (Armstrong, J.)

Complaint Alleging Sale of Infringing "Goods" Fails to State a Claim of Patent Infringement

Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted. "Plaintiff alleges that 'defendants were selling goods that infringe upon Plaintiff’s . . . patent.'. . . [T]hese allegations are all too conclusory to support a claim under [Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)] and [Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (May 18, 2009)]. And while Plaintiff attaches a sales receipt to the Complaint and argues that the receipt 'show[s] the goods that are the subject of an infringing transaction,' the Complaint 'does nothing to establish that the referenced transaction has anything whatsoever to do with patent infringement.'"

Li Ming Tseng v. Marukai Corporation USA et al., 8-09-cv-00968
(CACD November 13, 2009, Order) (Guilford, J.)

Court's Prior Experience With Patents-in-Suit Does Not Override First-to-File Rule

Defendant's motion to dismiss in favor of a first-filed action in Delaware was granted. The location of witnesses favored venue in Delaware and the court's prior experience with the patents did not override the first-to-file rule. "[Plaintiff] points out that the Court has presided over cases involving the patents in suit. . . . Additionally, the Court has a pending case . . . involving all of the four patents in suit. However, the Federal Circuit has held that a court’s prior experience with the patents in suit does not favor it as a forum in the absence of 'ongoing litigation requiring consolidation.' Here, [plaintiff] has made no arguments concerning the consolidation of this case with [the other], which involves different defendants and different accused products."

Multimedia Patent Trust v. Tandberg, Inc., 3-09-cv-01377
(CASD November 11, 2009, Order) (Huff, J.)

Tax Refund Loan Patents Deemed Invalid Under In re Bilski

The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment of invalidity as to patents claiming a "computerized system" consisting of a computer and "certain financial relationships between entities" for failing to claim patentable subject matter under In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 950-51 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), petition for cert. granted, 129 S.Ct. 2735 (2009). "A financial relationship is simply an abstract intellectual concept. Absent the recitation of a computer, the [patent-in-suit] would certainly claim unpatentable subject matter. . . . The computer component is not a particular, special-purpose machine; it is capable of no more than storing and retrieving data memorializing associations. The computer is an insignificant, extra-solution component of the claimed system. . . . If an extra-solution step is insufficient to render an otherwise unpatentable process claim valid, then by analogy an extra-solution component is insufficient to render an otherwise unpatentable 'system' claim valid."

H&R Block Tax Services, Inc. v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc.,
6-08-cv-00037 (TXED November 10, 2009, Report and Recommendations) (Love, M.J.)

Failure to Disclose Pending Reexamination Warrants Monetary Sanctions Against Nondisclosing Party and Counsel

Defendant and its former counsel of record were sanctioned for failing to disclose to the court and opposing counsel the existence of a reexamination proceeding concerning the patents-in-suit. The court awarded plaintiff its "Markman-related" costs and fees that would not have been incurred had the reexamination been disclosed and apportioned such fees and costs between defendant and its former counsel on an 80%/20% basis. Plaintiff sought sanctions in the amount of $800,000, but the court declined to determine the amount of damages until the conclusion of the reexamination proceeding. "Sanctions under Rule 37(c) are allowed to the extent of the damages 'caused by the failure'; here, the failure to supplement. Until the re-examination proceedings are complete, it is unknown how much of the work [plaintiff] has spent, and how much in costs and fees associated therewith have been wasted, and thus how much 'damages' have been incurred as a result." The court did not sanction defendant's current counsel because there was no evidence that current counsel knew of the reexamination proceeding until immediately prior to disclosure of that fact to the court and opposing counsel.

Allflex USA Inc v. Avid Identification Systems Inc., 5-06-cv-01109
(CACD October 30, 2009, Order) (Larson, J.)

Permitting Competition in One-Product Market Does Not Create Irreparable Harm Warranting Preliminary Injunction

In denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the court found no irreparable harm. "It is true that we are concerned with a one-product market. . . . If a second product is allowed into the market, the [plaintiff's] system will lose market share. Granted. But it will be reasonable and practical to estimate the extent of damages, given the track record over the last seven years. If plaintiff prevails at trial, then damages will reparable and defendant will be able to respond to an award -- or at least no convincing showing has been made to the contrary."

Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 3-09-cv-02280
(CAND November 6, 2009, Order) (Alsup, J.)