Infringement

Uber’s Section 101 Motion to Dismiss Defeated by “Inventive” Ordered Combination

Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, X One, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-06050-LHK (Judge Lucy H. Koh)

Uber Technologies, the transportation network giant, recently lost a motion to dismiss a two-patent infringement suit when the Court found that Plaintiff X One, Inc.’s patent claims are directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court held that the individual claim elements are conventional, but as an ordered combination provide an inventive concept sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. READ MORE

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

Must All Chocolate Be Brown? The Art of Claim Construction, Unwrapped

AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-CV-3393 YGR (Judge Yvonne Rogers) (June 25, 2014)

Claim construction orders and non-infringement summary judgment rulings usually do not make headlines because they are case-specific and typically do not concern the general population.  But they can be instructive for litigants and parties involved in patent infringement suits.  Such is the case here. READ MORE

Think Twice Before Abandoning Patent Infringement Claims

Radware, Ltd., v. A10 Networks, Inc., Case No. C-13-02021, Radware, Ltd., v. F5 Networks, Inc., Case No. C-13-02024 RMW (related cases)

If you file a complaint for patent infringement, and the defendant brings declaratory judgment non-infringement counterclaims, you better not abandon any of your claims, or else risk summary judgment of non-infringement. That’s exactly what happened to Radware, Ltd and Radware, Inc. (“Radware”) recently in Radware, Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc. READ MORE