IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "Federal Rules of Evidence"

Rules of Evidence Crush Wi-LAN’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Vizio and Sharp

On April 6, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, holding that Sharp Electronics Corporation (Sharp) and Vizio Inc. did not infringe Wi-LAN, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 6,359,654 (“the ‘654 patent”) or U.S. Patent No. 6,490,250 (“the ‘250 patent”)…. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, Wi-LAN argued that their expert, who did not attempt to authenticate the source code printout, should be able to opine on the meaning of the inadmissible source code printout and provide it to the jury despite Wi-LAN’s failure to authenticate the source code printout. This argument presented two questions for the CAFC: (1) whether the source code printout was admissible because it was relied upon by the expert, and (2) whether the expert’s testimony relying on the source code was admissible to establish infringement.

Supremes Deny 101 Appeal Dealing with Electronic Data and Electromagnetic Signals

On Monday, December 3rd, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Carl M. Burnett v. Panasonic Corporation, declining to take up the case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This is now the latest case involving questions of patent-eligibility for an invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101 declined by the nation’s highest court. In this case, however, the Supreme Court hasn’t addressed the patentability of the relevant subject matter, namely electronic data and electromagnetic analog and digital signals, since 1853.

Fishing for Trade Secrets

Modern discovery can be quite disruptive and expensive. Recognizing that there is a particular danger of abuse in trade secret cases, where defendants are often individuals or vulnerable start-ups, courts long ago began to manage this risk by requiring plaintiffs to identify the relevant secrets with “reasonable particularity.” In 1985, California decided to reinforce that requirement with a statute that prohibits a plaintiff from taking any discovery until it has complied. Some courts outside of California have embraced this approach as sensible case management, explaining that it prevents unbounded rummaging through the defendant’s own secrets. But a few have gone further, posing the issue as not just potential harassment of the defendant but also the risk that the plaintiff