Posts in District Courts

On Monday, August 21st, Omaha, NE-based voting machine firm Election Systems & Software filed a patent infringement suit against election product company Dominion Voting Systems of Toronto, Ontario. Election Systems is asserting a patent on an electronic voting machine technology that provides multiple methods by which a user may cast a vote in an effort to improve accessibility. The suit has been filed in the District of Delaware. Election Systems is asserting a single patent in the case: U.S. Patent No. 8991701, titled Integrated Voting System and Method for Accommodating Paper Ballots and Audio Ballots and issued to the firm in March 2015.

On August 8th, a memorandum opinion entered in the District of Nebraska overturned a jury verdict award of more than $30 million handed to Omaha, NE-based intellectual property licensing firm Prism Technologies LLC back in June 2015. After Prism won the multi-million damages award from Overland Park, KS-based telecommunications company Sprint (NYSE:S), a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld findings of patent invalidity in a different case involving the patents asserted by Prism. That Federal Circuit decision was applied to Prism’s case against Sprint in a way which shows patent owners that their intellectual property rights are seemingly never safe under the current U.S. patent policy regime.

John Thorne was VP and deputy general counsel for Verizon during its legal battle against former American cable television company Cablevision where Verizon asserted a series of patents it owned… A closer look into the patents renders some interesting information about the patents Verizon asserted and the company’s legal strategy in the case. Two of the eight patents asserted by Verizon in the District of Delaware weren’t originally invented by Verizon, Bell Atlantic or other any other of Verizon’s predecessor companies; they were acquired from outside entities… And haven’t we been told by the likes of Unified Patents that all patent owners who enforce their patents are patent trolls? One would have to assume if Unified is being logically consistent they would have extraordinary problems with Verizon’s activities particularly here where the patents used to sue Cablevision were acquired and not the subject of in-house innovation.

Finjan asserts four patents in the case and alleges that Bitdefender’s marketing of antivirus, cloud and sandboxing technologies infringes upon the patents-in-suit. The case has been filed in the Northern District of California… Finjan’s suit against Bitdefender alleges that Bitdefender was presented with written notice of the alleged infringement of Finjan’s patents as early as February 2015. In October 2015, Finjan alleged that it discussed the ‘844, ‘154 and ‘494 patents with Bitdefender and how those patents read on technology practiced by Bitdefender. Despite numerous in-person and telephone meetings, Finjan alleges that that Bitdefender has continued to engage in willful and deliberate infringement of Finjan’s IP.

Atari Interactive Inc. filed a lawsuit alleging trademark and copyright infringement claims against Swiss food and drink company Nestlé SA (VTX:NESN). The suit targets a worldwide and multi-platform advertising campaign produced by Nestlé for the company’s Kit Kat candy bars, which uses elements of Atari’s Breakout video game. The suit is filed in the Northern District of California. Atari’s suit alleges that Nestlé leveraged the look of Breakout for its Kit Kat ad campaign 40 years after Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created the game for Atari. “To be clear, this is not a case where a good faith dispute could exist between the rights holder and alleged infringer,” the complaint reads.

The total number of intellectual property claims included in all commercial cases is higher than the figure of 11,643 commercial cases including at least one IP claim. “It turns out to be incredibly hard to build a Venn diagram that reflects the types of IP claims included in these commercial cases,” said Brian Howard, Lex Machina data scientist and the author of the commercial litigation report. “It turns out to be its own mini-Venn diagram within a Venn diagram, some of the cases are patent and trademark and commercial, so there’s overlap within that IP circle.” Of the different types of intellectual property claims which are included in commercial litigation, trademark claims are by far the most common, occurring in a total of 8,277 commercial cases; that’s 15 percent of all commercial cases filed since 2009. Copyright claims were brought in a total of 3,260 commercial cases filed since 2009, a total representing about 6 percent of all commercial cases. Patent claims were brought in 2,219 commercial cases, or only about 4 percent of the total.

Avid sought fees as a prevailing party under § 285, and therefore the attorney’s fees in this action were properly characterized as an equitable remedy, properly decided by a judge. AIA argued that when an award of attorney’s fees is based in part or in whole on a party’s state of mind, intent, or culpability, only a jury may decide those issues. The Court rejected this argument because AIA provided no cases holding that once an issue is deemed equitable, a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial may still attach to certain underlying determinations.

In mag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., Romag sued Fossil for patent and trademark infringement and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) after one batch of Fossil’s handbags appeared to have counterfeit magnetic snaps. The jury found Fossil liable for patent and trademark infringement and for violating the CUTPA. The Federal Circuit affirmed the patent and trademark infringement verdicts. After that appeal, Romag sought attorney’s fees under the Patent Act, Lanham Act, and the CUTPA. The district court awarded attorney’s fees under all but the Lanham Act… The Supreme Court’s “objectively unreasonable” standard for attorney’s fees set forth in Octane applies to infringement cases under the Lanham Act and the Patent Act. In attorney’s fee disputes, courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the conduct of both parties.

Gamevice is asserting a single patent in this case: U.S. Patent No. 9126119, titled Combination Computing Device and Game Controller with Flexible Bridge Section. Issued in September 2015, it claims a combination device having a computing device with sides disposed between an electronic display screen and the device’s back, a communication port interacting with the computing device and having a pair of structures confining the computing device, an input device in communication with the communication port and having a pair of control modules providing input module apertures securing an instructional input device.

Raytheon, Nokia and Ericsson all filed briefs with the Federal Circuit encouraging the court to decline the Cray mandamus on a motion to transfer from EDTX… Cray is asking the Federal Circuit to decide two issues: did the Eastern Texas court err in holding that a “regular and established place of business” need not be a physical presence; and did the district court err in determining that the residence of a single work-from-home employee constitutes a “regular and established place of business” of his employer.

San Marcos, CA-based consumer hardware developer Snap Light LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Kimsaprincess Inc., a company owned by American reality television personality Kim Kardashian West. The patent suit targets West and her company over claims that she has endorsed a phone selfie case which infringes on a U.S. patent. The suit has been filed in the Central District of California.

On Wednesday, July 26th, Madison, WI-based chocolatier CocoVaa, LLC filed a complaint for declaratory relief against candy-making giant Mars Inc. of McLean, VA. The complaint seeks a judgment that the standard character mark “COCOVAA” does not infringe upon Mars’ trademark for “COCOAVIA”, a nutritional supplement derived from cocoa designed to improve blood flow. The case has been filed in the Western District of Wisconsin.

Although the distinction between inherency in obviousness and anticipation is sometimes blurred, the two concepts are quite different and a claim may be inherently anticipated without being inherently obvious.  This could happen if the missing and unknown limitation were to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art, and yet not be predictedable… A major difference between having knowledge of the missing limitation versus not having it is that the knowledge can provide the motivation to combine prior art references. 

The Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V. upholding the determination that the patent owned by biotech firm Regeneron was unenforceable. The decision affirmed a lower court’s finding based on Regeneron’s inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which was the result of the withholding of references from the USPTO that had but-for materiality. The patent, which the Federal Circuit deemed unenforceable, is U.S. Patent No. 8502018, titled Methods of Modifying Eukaryotic Cells.