Claim Chart

A Defendant’s Understanding of Infringement Contentions Is Not Enough To Comply With The Patent Local Rules

Order Granting Motion to Strike, Staying Discovery, and Granting Leave to Amend, GeoVector Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, Case No. 16-cv02463-WHO (Judge William H. Orrick)

Albert Einstein once noted:  “Any fool can know.  The point is to understand.”  That logic was recently applied in a patent infringement case brought by GeoVector Corporation against Samsung.  GeoVector learned that the Courts of the Northern District will not accept the sufficiency of infringement contentions that the Court itself finds inscrutable and unintelligible merely because the defendant has supposedly “demonstrated an understanding” of the plaintiff’s theories. READ MORE

You May Not Need To Reverse Engineer an Accused Product To Make Infringement Contentions, But You Better Explain Functionality

Order Granting-In-Part Defendant’s Motion to Strike Patent Infringement ContentionsTech. Licensing Corp. v. Grass Valley USA, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-06060-PSG (Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal)

The famed architect Helmut Jahn once observed that “[a] good engineer thinks in reverse and asks himself about the stylistic consequences of the components and systems he proposes.”   These thoughts from one of the United States’ most influential architects seem particularly apt given the recent conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal in Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Grass Valley USA, Inc, regarding what level of specificity is required to satisfy the Northern District of California’s Patent Local Rules that govern preliminary infringement contentions.