8 results for 'cat:"Patent" AND cat:"Sanctions"'.
J. Snyder grants L'Oreal's motion for terminating sanctions in a patent dispute over a hair-coloring dispensing system. The court found that the accused products did not infringe upon the patent, and that the patent holder did not allege a trade secret and that the information in the patent could not be protected as a trade secret. L'Oreal asserts that documents presented in the first amended complaint were inauthentic. A forensic expert determined that some documents had been edited after litigation began. Evidence shows that the patent holder "acted willfully, in bad faith, and with fault by repeatedly fabricating, destroying, and withholding important evidence."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv364, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, sanctions, Trade Secrets
J. Connolly refers lawyers representing several shell entities tied to patent monetization firm IP Edge to state bar regulators to investigate conduct related to dozens of patent infringement complaints filed in several federal districts on behalf of the de facto patent owners. Also, attorneys working for IP Edge are referred to the Texas Supreme Court for allegedly practicing law without authorization.
Court: USDC Delaware, Judge: Connolly, Filed On: November 27, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv1247, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, sanctions
J. Barker grants, in part, the ash processing company's motion for sanctions against the mineral recovery machine manufacturer, ruling the inspector's photos and statements about the processing company's filtration system violated the parties' protective order. They were used on the manufacturer's patent application for a similar product and not solely for discovery, as required by the order. Therefore, the manufacturer will be enjoined from introducing the patent during this case while the ash processing company is awarded fees associated with this motion.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Barker, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv662, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: patent, sanctions, Attorney Fees
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. Estudillo partially grants the docking cradles manufacturer's motion for sanctions against the machinery company for not providing timely responses to the manufacturer's discovery requests in this patent litigation. The machinery company had 30 days to respond to the requests and did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why it did not, and its attorney did not agree to a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference as required by the local rules. The manufacturer may file a motion for attorney fees within 10 days of this order.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Estudillo, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv428, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: patent, sanctions, Discovery
[Consolidated.] J. Willett finds the district court improperly sanctioned the event ticket-selling service for failing to designate a list of its affiliates as “highly confidential” during discovery in the underlying patent infringement suit. Though that part of the sanctions order imposing liability against the company was properly entered, the part imposing liability against individual representatives was improperly calculated. The court also did not provide adequate reasoning as to the calculation, nor did it address the application of factors from a guiding case in a way that would facilitate meaningful review. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Willett, Filed On: June 19, 2023, Case #: 21-40705, Categories: patent, sanctions, Discovery