51 results for 'cat:"Patent" AND cat:"Discovery"'.
J. Winmill grants in part a company's motion to compel in a patent infringement dispute regarding simulated log-siding panel and the machine attachment used to create it. The patent holder did not produce a full exclusive license agreement until after the close of discovery and failed to correct a misstatement in its complaint that it manufactures, distributes and sells simulated log siding when, in fact, it had exclusively licensed those rights to another company. Discovery will be reopened for 45 days. The company may also conduct a second deposition of the patent holder and may file a motion for fees related to this motion.
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Winmill, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv307, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
[Consolidated.] J. Gilstrap denies two discovery motions in patent infringement litigation for claims relating to dopants in semiconductor devices. For instance, the defendant company's motion to strike the patent holder's infringement contentions is denied since the accused features in the specified product are identified with "sufficient specificity."
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Gilstrap, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv212, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Gilstrap partly grants the motion to compel responses to a certain interrogatory and to produce documents "related to the benefits of cellular connectivity in the accused products" for a patent infringement suit. The accused company is ordered to supplement its responses to the interrogatory as specified and to produce the relevant documents if found.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Texas , Judge: Gilstrap, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv412, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Fallon compels a biotechnology company to produce unredacted copies of certain communications between non-attorneys and portions of a lab notebook in patent infringement claims concerning non-invasive prenatal testing technology, and denies all other requests to compel documents.
Court: USDC Delaware, Judge: Fallon, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv1734, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
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. Foster denies the patent claimant's motion to compel and partially grants the patent defendant's motion to compel in a suit alleging infringement of a patent for a miniature cellular modem. The information the claimant seeks is no longer relevant to any of this case's active claims following a finding that its asserted patents are invalid. The defendant seeks documents related to legal advice on the patent, investor presentations and the patent claimant's attorney's billing records. The request for billing records is granted, and the claimant shall also direct its attorney to produce documents to the extent that they may relate to inequitable conduct, prior art or possible prior art, or any decisions to omit or disclose that art to the patent office.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Foster, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 0:22cv2345, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Edwards grants the ketchup bottle manufacturer's motion to compel discovery. The plastic packaging manufacturer alleged the ketchup bottle manufacturer infringed upon its "oxygen scavenging" technology, and the bottle manufacturer seeks information regarding the packaging manufacturer's testing process. By providing certain testing information in its complaint, the packaging manufacturer relied on its allegedly privileged material and the bottle manufacturer's substantial need for this information is presumed.
Court: USDC Western District of Kentucky, Judge: Edwards , Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv110, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery, Technology
J. Berton allows an electronic company to conduct limited venue discovery in a patent dispute before ruling on a motion from a competitor it sued to either dismiss this case or transfer it to the District of Delaware. Venue is a “threshold issue” here, because if this case is ultimately transferred, the arguments for dismissal would be best considered by the other court.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Berton, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 6:23cv726, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Venue, discovery
J. Winmill grants a seller's motion to compel discovery in a patent dispute involving the sale of a log-siding machine. The seller holds several patents covering the log-siding machine and the log-siding itself and alleges the buyer fabricated a set of discs for use with the machine which violate the seller's patents. The buyer is compelled to produce revenue information which the seller seeks.
Court: USDC Idaho, Judge: Winmill, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv307, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Knapp denies, in part, the competitor's motion to compel discovery, ruling its requests for "all literature or other materials" related both to the patentholder's crossbows and any of its confidentiality agreements with third parties are overly broad and would pose an undue burden on the company.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Knapp, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv598, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Stadtmueller partially grants the range hood manufacturer's motion to compel discovery regarding jurisdiction in its lawsuit against the Hong Kong-based company it claims sold range hoods at Home Depot stores in the United States that infringe on two of its patents. Limited discovery is ordered regarding, among other things, the development, import and sale of the infringing range hoods in the United States, and the manufacturer's motion to stay briefing on the company's motion to dismiss is granted.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge: Stadtmueller, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv393, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Major partly grants a fitness company's motion to compel a treadmill manufacturer to produce license agreements in this patent dispute. Because there is a question regarding the validity and applicability of a licensing and royalty agreement, the patents related to non-curved treadmills and their components are relevant and discoverable. However, the manufacturer is not entitled to the fitness company's profit and loss statements, as this is significant and sensitive financial information from a direct competitor.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Major, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv492, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Robart grants the aircraft manufacturer's motion to seal its Dec. 29, 2023 letter to the court in its lawsuit accusing Boeing of infringing on the aircraft manufacturer's hybrid-electric and electric aircraft technology. Boeing does not oppose this motion, which the aircraft manufacturer puts forth because its interrogatory responses "in part reflect Zunum’s confidential and proprietary business information and may reflect information Zunum learned from documents that Boeing produced in this litigation and designated confidential."
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Robart, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv896, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Ericksen rules on several motions in limine in a patent suit regarding four patents related to artificial trees. The patent defendants may reference the existence and invalid status of eight underlying independent claims, but must avoid details of inter partes review proceedings leading to those determinations. They may also introduce evidence and testimony regarding their subjective beliefs and independent investigation into infringement and validity issues, sales data for unaccused products, and undisclosed prior art for invalidity defenses, but not evidence solely aimed at establishing inequitable conduct. The patent claimants, meanwhile, are precluded from presenting evidence or arguments regarding prior lawsuits, but may introduce evidence related to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's analysis of secondary considerations, along with evidence of inter partes review proceedings subject to an appropriate limiting instruction and some online comments, depending on context. A motion seeking cross-examination of the patent claimant's patent prosecution attorney is premature, and testimony and an agreement from one of the claimant's witnesses is excluded.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Ericksen, Filed On: January 10, 2024, Case #: 0:15cv3443, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Ericksen issues decisions on ten motions in limine in the patent claimant's suit alleging that competitors infringed on four patents related to artificial trees. One of the claimant's motions in limine is granted outright, and the competitors are precluded from presenting evidence or arguments regarding prior lawsuits. Two more are granted in part: the competitors may reference the existence and invalid status of eight underlying, unasserted independent claims, but should avoid discussing the proceedings that led to their dismissal and focus on how their invalidity impacts the obviousness analysis for remaining dependent claims, and while they may not introduce evidence specifically aimed at establishing inequitable conduct they may reference undisclosed prior art. They may also introduce evidence and testimony regarding their beliefs and independent investigation into infringement and validity issues, along with sales data for unaccused products. Four of the competitors' motions, meanwhile are denied, while one is partially granted. Deposition transcripts from those earlier proceedings are excluded, as are live testimony from a third-party witness and a license agreement which was disclosed several months after its execution. The competitor's motions are otherwise denied.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Ericksen, Filed On: January 5, 2024, Case #: 0:15cv3443, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery
J. Maze grants a bee company’s motion to dismiss counterclaims for falsely marking carpenter bee traps brought by a patent holder. The patent holder alleges the company’s selling carpenter bee traps on Amazon that infringes on his patent. The court finds the patent holder’s counterclaim fails to state a claim and is dismissed. The patent holder’s motion for leave to amend his false marking claim and motion for partial summary judgment are denied. The motion for leave to refile may be filed at the close of discovery.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Maze, Filed On: January 3, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv1623, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery, False Advertising
J. Gorton denies an artificial intelligence company and two former employees of an actuarial and consulting firm’s motion to file an amended answer and counterclaims after the actuarial and consulting firm sued them for misappropriation of trade secrets and patent infringement. The deadline for amendments is not going to be extended based on information found during discovery because the AI company and the former employees deferred discovery.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Gorton, Filed On: December 22, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv10865, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Trade Secrets, discovery
J. Leung denies the declaratory judgment seeker's motions to strike portions of an expert report, expert disclosure, diligence documents and undisclosed testimony and partially grants its motion to compel production of notebooks kept by the patent holders' principal. The requested notebooks are relevant to the judgment seeker's claim that its product did not infringe the patent holders' patents, they need not be communications to be responsive, and it would not be unduly burdensome or untimely to produce them at this point, particularly since the judgment seeker first learned of them in the context of the principal's trial testimony. A motion to strike new infringement theories fails because no new infringement theory has actually been disclosed. A motion to strike a summary of anticipated expert testimony similarly fails because the summary does not alter the existing infringement theories. Finally, spreadsheets regarding the disputed software are demonstrative evidence and need not be excluded at this time.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Leung, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 0:20cv700, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, Experts, discovery
J. Reznik partially denies the defendant company's motion for a protective order which asserts attorney-client privilege over its communications with patent counsel. Counsel already shared many documents with the plaintiff in her role as a corporate agent, and there are no confidences to be kept from her in these documents. However, her use of these communications must be limited to this litigation and may not be disclosed publicly on the docket.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Reznik, Filed On: November 22, 2023, Case #: 7:22cv9095, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, discovery, Privilege