For the first time, an Eastern District of Virginia judge has addressed claims of indirect patent infringement claims under Twombly and Iqbal, and it appears that a plaintiff needs only to recite the elements of induced or contributory infringement to defeat a motion to dismiss. The Nielsen Co. v. comScore, Inc., Case No. 2:11CV168 (E.D.Va. Aug. 19, 2011) (Davis, J.).
Continue Reading...Our colleague Suraj Balusu has written an analysis, which can be found here, of last week's decision by the Federal Circuit that provides an important refinement of the patentable subject matter debate. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011). As noted in the analysis, this ruling further erodes the ability to patent (and protect) certain alleged innovations in the business world and potentially opens a new avenue for those accused of infringement to challenge a Beauregard claim.
Standing can be a tricky issue in situations where affiliated corporate entities assign and cross-license patents amongst themselves. In Pfizer, Inc., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 2:10cv128, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90021 (E.D.Va. Aug. 12, 2011), Judge Smith weighed-in on two interesting scenarios: trustee-beneficiary patent ownership and exclusive licenses with owner-retained rights.
Continue Reading...Among his eleven summary judgment rulings in MeadWestvaco’s (“MWV”) patent infringement suit against Rexam and Valois, Judge Lee dismissed claims of inequitable conduct under Therasense but allowed claims of inducement of infringement to survive under the Supreme Court’s new standard of “willful blindness.”
Judge Lee’s rulings heavily favored MWV, which prevailed on its motions for summary judgment on anticipation, obviousness and inequitable conduct and defeated Rexam’s and Valois’ motions on indefiniteness, infringement and willfulness. MWV lost only on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Judge Lee’s opinion can be found here and at MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Rexam PLC, Case No. 1:10CV511, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92947 (E.D.Va. Aug. 18, 2011). Our earlier post on this case can be found here, and a summary of Judge Lee’s rulings follows:
Continue Reading...Following up on the jury’s $115 million verdict in favor of ActiveVideo in its patent infringement suit against Verizon, Judge Jackson has issued three separate written opinions relating to invalidity and inequitable conduct claims made at trial, including:
Judge Hilton, in a textbook case of Prosecution History Estoppel, granted a fitness equipment manufacturer summary judgment of non-infringement without breaking a sweat. The 24 page opinion in Fitness Gaming Corp. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., Case No. 1:11CV200, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90605 (E.D. VA. Aug. 12, 2011) is worth a read for patent prosecutors and litigators wishing to get results (or at least well-versed in the subject) in 30 minutes or less.
Those of you planning to give a Crock Pot® Cook & Carry Slow Cooker as a Christmas gift can breathe easy. Judge Spencer has denied Hamilton Beach’s bid for a preliminary injunction to bar sales of the Sunbeam product for infringing Hamilton Beach’s patent on a clip to prevent the lid of the cooker from sliding off during transportation. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., Case No. 3:11CV345 (E.D.Va. Aug. 15, 2011) (Spencer, J.). The Order denying the injunction can be found here
As is typical in the Eastern District of Virginia, the preliminary injunction process moved swiftly. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 7,947,928 (“the ‘928 patent”) issued on May 24, 2011, and Hamilton Beach filed its Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction the same day. The parties conducted discovery and briefed the motion and a hearing on the motion was held less than three months later, on August 11. Judge Spencer issued his Order only four days later.
Continue Reading...Successful patent invalidity challenges asserting prior invention under § 102(g)(2) are rare, which makes Judge Smith’s recent award of summary judgment on that basis even more noteworthy. In her latest opinion in The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., Case No. 2:10CV314, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87231 (E.D.Va. Aug. 8, 2011), found here, Judge Smith sets out a helpful roadmap for an accused infringer pursuing a § 102(g)(2) invalidity claim.
Continue Reading...Can a contract between private parties prevent the PTO from proceeding with a patent reexamination? Callaway Golf thought so when it signed a settlement agreement with a competitor in the golf ball industry. In Callaway Golf Co. v. Kappos, Case No 1:11CV266, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82381 (E.D. VA. July 27, 2011) (Brinkema, L.), Judge Brinkema disagreed.
Continue Reading...PatentlyO reports here that the House version of patent reform legislation, H.R. 1249, will be the first item that the Senate will take up after its August recess. Rather than attempt to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate passed bills, the Democratic majority intends to attempt to invoke cloture and pass the House bill as is, potentially speeding the legislation to President Obama's desk.
Perhaps, at long last, patent reform is at hand.
Following up on our earlier post here, Judge Spencer has issued his Memorandum Opinion, found here, detailing his reasons for issuing a stay pending reexamination in JuxtaComm-Texas Software, LLC v. Lanier Parking Systems of Virginia, Inc., Case No. 3:11CV299 (E.D.Va. Aug. 1, 2011) (Spencer, J.). The opinion reiterates that the factor distinguishing JuxtaComm from cases where stays have been denied is that the PTO had issued a Final Office Action rejecting the claims at issue before the Complaint was served. JuxtaComm argued that it was prejudiced by the slow speed of the reexamination process. On the contrary, Judge Spencer, held, a stay "would permit JuxtaComm to race to the finish line in litigation it pursued after learning that the PTO had rejected virtually all of its claims."
Our colleagues George Snyder and Rob Browne have written a detailed analysis, which can be found here, of last week's decision by the Federal Circuit that certain isolated human DNA molecules are eligible for patent protection. The Association of Molecular Pathology et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, and Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2011). This was an important decision because the patenting of isolated DNA molecules has broad commercial value to the growing biotech industry.
In Mazelmints, Inc. v. It’s a Wrap, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:10cv1117 (July 20, 2011), found here, Judge Liam O’Grady found against Defendant for infringing Plaintiff’s trademarks but held that the Plaintiff’s inability to prove that it was entitled to earn damages greater than the actual profits that Defendants earned from the infringing use of the marks resulted in a damages award of only $670.42.
Continue Reading...Late yesterday, a jury awarded ActiveVideo $115 million from Verizon, concluding the trial phase of the heated patent litigation.
Continue Reading...In Hammerhead Entertainment, L.L.C. v. Ennis, et al., Civil Action No. 4:11cv65 (July 18, 2011), found here, Judge Mark S. Davis granted default judgment and entered a permanent injunction on Hammerhead’s trademark infringement claims but refused to grant judgment for fraudulent procurement of a trademark registration or to declare defendants’ pending trademark application void.
Continue Reading...It looks like summer is the time for Eastern District of Virginia judges to clear out their backlog. In addition to the recent decisions we’ve blogged about here, here and here, there have been several rulings in patent, trademark and copyright cases in the EDVA in the past ten days. Here’s a quick summary of several:
Continue Reading...Enter keywords:
