The District Court for the Central District of California recently found that plaintiff Akeso Health Sciences, LLC’s 10-year delay in filing its patent infringement claims justified granting defendant Designs for Health, Inc.’s (DFH) motion for summary judgment on equitable estoppel grounds.
A federal district court in the Southern District of Texas recently addressed venue issues relating to supplier-distributor relationships. Given the defendant’s lack of physical presence in the district, Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue.
In an order issued on April 4, 2018, Judge Lynn granted plaintiff ZitoVault’s motion for summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2), holding that defendant IBM is estopped from asserting invalidity defenses based on prior art known to IBM when it filed its first petition for inter partes review.
On June 19, 2017, Northern District of California Judge William Alsup granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC’s (“Comcast”) motion to strike defendants OpenTV, Inc. and Nagravision SA’s (collectively “OpenTV”) infringement contentions. The court, however, did not strike with prejudice but instead treated Comcast’s motion as a motion to compel amendment of OpenTV’s infringement contentions so that OpenTV could cure deficiencies.
Under the first-to-file rule (not to be confused with the provision from the America Invents Act), when two actions involving overlapping issues and parties are pending in two federal venues, the first-filed case is generally favored. This case applies the rule to a fact pattern in which the first case (a declaratory judgment action) was filed one minute after the patent-in-suit issued, and the second case was filed hours thereafter.
On February 28, 2017, Judge George Hazel issued an order and opinion granting Defendants LWRC International, LLC (“LWRCI”) and Sig Sauer, Inc.’s. (“Sig Sauer”) motions to dismiss Plaintiff Paul Andrew Leitner-Wise’s complaint, finding that Plaintiff no longer possessed any rights in the asserted patent and therefore lacked standing to bring a claim of patent infringement.
On December 29, Judge William Alsup declined to impose sanctions in a case he characterized as “an everyday exchange between attorneys over extending a civil action deadline that escalated to a finger-pointing sanctions controversy, then to an evidentiary hearing to determine which lawyer was telling the truth.”
On December 6, 2016, the Federal Circuit remanded, in part, a district court’s grant of a permanent injunction in order to develop additional facts relating to the appropriate reach and scope of the injunction. Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc. (16-1026).