572 results for 'cat:"Patent"'.
J. Whitehead denies Microsoft's motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the computer consulting company's claim that Microsoft wrongfully uses the former's patented technology connected to “systems and techniques for archiving and restoring files" within its file hosting service "Microsoft OneDrive." The computer consulting company sufficiently argues that the asserted patents focus on allowing real-time data capture and versioning of prior files, which is patentable, because they act as a "specific improvement to backup technology that fixes problems in the prior art, including data loss between backups," not as a general idea.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Whitehead, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv1545, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Technology
J. Lourie finds that the Patent Board ruled properly in this patent dispute over technological patents for a voice system that allows users to request information using a web browser. The patents are unpatentable as obvious. Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Lourie, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 2022-1269, Categories: patent, Technology
J. Prost finds that the district court properly ruled in this patent dispute over an expandable hose design because the competing company properly pleaded to correct the patents and add co-inventors. Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Prost, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 2021-2316, Categories: patent
J. Groves denies cross motions for summary judgment between a gold and iron prospecting equipment seller and a competitor in a patent infringement dispute. There are issues of disputed fact to be determined by a factfinder and "the Court cannot determine literal infringement under the doctrine of equivalents at the summary judgment stage."
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Groves, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv384, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Trademark
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Arnold finds a lower court properly dismissed a hearing implant manufacturer's patent infringement claims against another implant manufacturer. The hearing implant maker argued that the competition infringed on its cochlear implant systems product. However, the patent in question is obvious.
Court: Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, Judge: Arnold, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: CA-2022-1398, Categories: Evidence, patent
J. Albright denies a motion to dismiss or alternatively transfer to the Northern District of California after one company sued a competitor for alleged infringement of a patent on unspecified technology. The competitor has failed to show why the other court would be clearly more convenient, and the company that sued has alleged the competitor has links to the Western District of Texas.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Albright, Filed On: June 9, 2023, Case #: 6:22cv259, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Venue
J. Chun partially denies the global semiconductor's motion to exclude the qualitative apportionment opinions of the fabless semiconductor company's expert, Lauren R. Kindler, in a patent lawsuit. Kindler's qualitative apportionment opinions are sufficiently reliable.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Chun, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv1503, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Damages, Experts
J. Brown denies partial summary judgment and finds the defendant’s hydradermabrasion device, known as the “Skinwave,” did not infringe on the litigant’s competing device due to the lack of a manifold system. However, the court finds the litigant prevailed on its claim for validity, finding its patent sufficiently distinguished itself from another one of its device patents because it contained a manifold system.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Brown, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv6082, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Technology
J. Taranto finds that the patent trial and appeal board improperly ruled in a dispute over "vehicle floor trays" because plaintiff sufficiently pleaded obviousness. Reversed in part.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Taranto, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 22-1373, Categories: patent
J. Moore finds that the patent trial and appeal board properly ruled in this dispute over a heart catheter guide because the competitor failed to demonstrate catheter guides are unpatentable. Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Moore, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 2021-2359, Categories: patent
J. Mix denies an electronics company summary judgment in patent claims brought by an end-to-end internet technology provider because the company failed to establish the provider's technology was too broad to qualify for a patent.
Court: USDC Colorado, Judge: Mix, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv1254, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent
J. Engelmayer grants the shower curtain manufacturers' motion for attorney fees under the fee provisions of the Patent Act and the Lanham Act and awards $929,000 in attorney fees, as well as costs and pre- and post-judgment interest, in their favor in a patent infringement action against the competitors. The fee award is justified largely by the objective unreasonableness and unprofessionalism of the competitors in defending the case. The competitors ignored court rulings, repeatedly violated the scheduling order and unnecessarily prolonged the litigation. Judgment is entered in the amount of $2.9 million.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Engelmayer, Filed On: June 5, 2023, Case #: 1:15cv10154, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Attorney Fees
J. Kasubhai dismisses the adhesive manufacturing company's invalidity expert from the software company's lawsuit, which alleges that the adhesive manufacturing company copied the protected design of the software company's patent for its serial number encoder, as the patent partially relates to systems for encoded and commissioned wireless radio frequency identification (RFID) devices. The expert's opinions that the patent claims are invalid because they do not comply with the "RFID for Dummies" patentability conditions are too conclusory to be valuable to the jury, because the expert does not analyze how each of the "RFID for Dummies" disclosures specifically explains the claim limitations to which they are meant to correspond.
Court: USDC Oregon, Judge: Kasubhai, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 6:17cv1685, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Jury, patent, Experts
J. Chesler rules against the parties in claims contending televisions sold by an electronics competitor infringed patent no. 7,475,180 because evidence does not indicate the competitor's televisions copied any element of those sold by plaintiff. Meanwhile, evidence does not indicate plaintiff suffered increased damages related to the disparity between treasury bill rates and commercial interest rates from royalty payments.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Chesler , Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 2:15cv4431, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Damages
J. Doughty denies a request by a Louisiana-based baby products manufacturer for permission to amend its answer to a patent infringement suit, arising from its “no tears” pail for shampooing a baby’s hair. At issue is whether the baby-bucket maker and other businesses named in the suit have “an unfettered right” to alter their answer to the complaint to add “whatever additional defenses and counterclaims they desire. The answer is that they do not.” The patent suit was filed in 2016. Trial is set to begin September 18, 2023.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Doughty, Filed On: May 30, 2023, Case #: 3:17cv821, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Property, Business Practices
J. Lourie finds that the patent trial and appeal board properly held that a guide extension catheter was not unpatentable on grounds that the Itou patent does not constitute prior art because the product at issue was reduced to practice "prior to the critical date." Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Lourie, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 2021-2356, Categories: patent
J. Wu strikes the printing services company’s untimely reasonable royalty theory and belated disclosures related to its lawsuit, as it sought a declaration that the printing services company and the inventor did not infringe on a patent entitled “Metal Child Resistant Container.” The printing services company raised the issue of non-infringement, but it did not cite any specific documents it produced that were relevant to non-infringing alternatives.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Wu, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv6177, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, patent, Discovery