Posts Tagged: "EDTX"

Plano, TX-based security tech provider Uniloc USA recently filed a pair of patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.) in which Uniloc asserts a series of patents directed at conference call and voice over Internet (VoIP) technologies. The defendants, Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Internet services subsidiary Google and e-commerce giant Amazon.com (NASDAQ:AMZN), are the latest targets in a series of suits Uniloc has filed in the past year… Past Uniloc suits involving the above patents have been filed against Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ:FB), Cisco Systems (NASDAQ:CSCO), BlackBerry Corporation (NASDAQ:BBRY), Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) and Snapchat, now Snap Inc. (NYSE:SNAP). Uniloc’s suit against Google is the fourth suit involving patents in the litigation campaign and the third filed against Google since the beginning of March.

The fact that 36.7 percent of all patent cases filed in E.D. Tex. seems to be an exceptionally high degree of concentration in case filings, but the Lex Machina report further notes that 95 percent of civil litigation filed in E.D. Tex. is assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Of the 4,533 patent cases filed in U.S. district courts during 2016, a total of 1,119 cases were assigned to Judge Gilstrap alone. That means that, not only are more than one-third of all patent cases confined to a single district court, nearly 25 percent of all patent cases filed in the U.S. are assigned to a single ju

Perhaps not your typical or average patent, the ‘443 patent has some 135 patent claims, which relate to a proximity authorization unit, a proximity service unit, a method of using the proximity authorization unit, or a system for implementing the proximity authorization unit. The majority of the claims, however, are drafted specifically to cover the devices (i.e., the proximity authorization and service units)… This is not the first time that Disney’s MagicBand wireless communication products have been the target of patent infringement litigation. In April 2015, radio frequency system developer InCom Corporation of Sutter, CA, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) alleging that Disney’s MagicBands infringed upon InCom patents covering audience tracking system technologies. Last August, the two companies agreed to settle the case after InCom had alleged that Disney sold about 10 million MagicBands at $12.95 each after being notified of the potential infringement.

Whirlpool successfully argued that it would be irreparably harmed without the relief of permanent injunction in addition to the settlement agreement, which is executed separately of the court order. The recent court order for permanent injunction also affirmed the validity of all four utility patents asserted in the case along with finding that the defendant’s importation and sale of replacement water filters infringed on claims covered by the patents-in-suit.

The Federal Circuit granted a mandamus petition filed by Google and ordered a Texas federal court to transfer a patent infringement case to a federal court that covers Silicon Valley as requested by Google. This extraordinary remedy was delivered in the form of a non-precedential opinion authored by Chief Judge Prost and joined by Judge Lourie. Despite the Federal Circuit’s designation of the decision as non-precedential the Court should be prepared for the onslaught of mandamus petitions that will now be filed given that they have shown a willingness to step in and re-weigh transfer factors de novo.

For the year patent infringement cases dropped by 22 percent from the previous year, from 5,823 cases in 2015 down to 4,520 cases in 2016. 2016 actually saw the lowest number of patent infringement lawsuits filed since 2011, when 3,578 cases were filed. There was no month during 2016 where more than 460 patent suits were filed; both 2014 and 2015 had at least one month where more than 650 patent suits were filed in district court.

The Federal Circuit’s broad interpretation of the patent-venue statute has led to widespread forum-shopping with a disproportionate number of cases being filed in the Eastern District of Texas. For example, since 2011, roughly a quarter of all patent-infringement cases have been filed in the Eastern District, with 2015 being a peak year when 44% of all patent-infringement cases were filed. This despite the fact that the Eastern District of Texas is home to relatively few companies and home to little more than 3.5 million people. By comparison, the Northern District of California, a district with nearly 8 million people and home to many companies, only made up 4-5% of all patent-infringement filings annually.

The genesis of the patent venue “problem” is simple: Many patent infringement defendants complain about traveling to the Eastern District of Texas. They feel that it is too pro-patent, too pro-enforcement, or too difficult for defendants to win on a motion to dismiss… With the US Supreme Court agreeing to hear TC Heartland the perennial patent venue issue is front and center for patent reform in 2017. This case will attract much amicus, media, Congressional, law school, and fake news attention. It should influence how patent owners and litigation investors look at venue options in general and perhaps also with regard to growth markets like Germany and China. It will also tell us how the Trump administration thinks about patent issues.

Suffice it to say that 2016 has been an interesting year. The political climate is much different than one year ago amidst a growing tide of nationalism abroad and populism here in the United States. Throw in a massive migration crisis stemming from the Middle East, a slew of unexpected celebrity passings and the fact that the Chicago Cubs are lovable losers no more, and we’re about to wind down a year which seems nearly mythological in stature… As we turn the page onward to 2017, it’s a good time to take another look at some of the major trends shaping the IP and technology landscape in the United States and abroad. From increasing competition with an Asian powerhouse to the continuation of a misleading narrative about patent system abuses, the past year leaves us with many important narratives to consider for the year ahead.

The report indicates that IP litigation in U.S. district courts is declining across the board. During 2016’s third quarter, U.S. district courts received a total of 1,127 new patent infringement suits. This was greater than the 960 patent infringement cases filed in the first quarter of this year but it was also the third smallest docket in a single quarter going back to the fourth quarter of 2011, before the terms of the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 went into effect. The third quarter of 2015 saw 1,114 patent litigation filed in U.S. courts, so three of the lowest quarters in terms of patent infringement filings since the AIA have come over the past 15 months.

Three of the judicial emergencies, just less than 10 percent of all judicial emergencies in the U.S. federal court system, are in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.). With the judicial vacancies in E.D. Tex., the concern is that a growing docket of patent infringement cases could create a bottleneck for the court, greatly increasing the amount of time that it takes the court to issue a decision. Business litigation is typically given a backseat to criminal litigation in district courts as American law upholds a suspected criminal’s right to a speedy trial. The vacancies also naturally result in an increased percentage of U.S. patent infringement cases assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This January, we reported that Judge Gilstrap could be deciding as much as 20 percent of all patent infringement cases filed in U.S. district courts. The fact that one judge could be deciding as much as one-fifth of the patent infringement docket at the district court level seems a little less than democratic.

The court decided to award enhanced damages in this case because of egregious behavior on behalf of Samsung, including attempts to copy the technology and demonstrably false testimony given by Samsung. For example, Samsung’s representatives testified under oath that they only became aware of Imperium IP’s patents in June 2014, when the infringement action was first brought to court. Depositions and other discovery proved this to be incorrect. One witness who worked at ESS Technologies, the company to which the ‘884 patent was first assigned, testified that Samsung sought specific information on anti-flicker and flash technology. It was also proven that Samsung had previously attempted to purchase the patents-in-suit from Imperium, concealing its identity through a patent broker. Instead of June 2014, the court found that Samsung knew about Imperium’s patents since at least April 2011.

There is simply no reason for so many patent cases to wind up in a district with so little relation to those cases. Basic principles of equity and justice don’t vanish just because a patent is involved. The court hearing a patent case should have a real interest in the case, just like any tort or contract case. The Eastern District of Texas has literally created a local industry of patent litigation, intentionally or not. Even local businesses acknowledge it and exploit it. Patent venue reform is long overdue, and it’s something that Congress can and should get done.

One aspect of the recent Lex Machina report that should jump out to anyone who has closely followed the patent litigation sector over the past few years is that the high percentage of all patent cases filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.) has dropped significantly. During 2015, E.D. Tex. received 43 percent of all patent infringement cases filed in American district courts. This dropped off steeply to 30 percent, or 291 cases filed, during 2016’s first quarter.

On April 1, 2016, Rovi Corporation (NASDAQ: ROVI), a pioneer in the field of electronic program guides, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Comcast in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The lawsuit alleges that twelve years ago Comcast took a license to Rovi’s patent portfolio, but that license expired on March 31, 2016, without being renewed. Rovi says that Comcast has failed to remove any of its products and services from the market and also continues to provide those products and services, all of which are now infringing because of the expiration of the patent license agreement.