Infringement

Inadequate Disclosures Preclude Monetary Damages Recovery in Trademark Infringement Suit

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Sazerac Co., Inc., et al. v. Fetzer Vineyards, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04618-WHO (Judge William H. Orrick)

As any practitioner who has sought to establish trademark infringement already knows, likelihood of confusion is difficult to prove at trial. Nonetheless, a recent Order in Sazerac Co., Inc., et al. v. Fetzer Vineyards, Inc. demonstrates that plaintiffs still retain certain inherent advantages at the summary judgment stage in proving that there exists a likelihood of confusion, given the high hurdle for defendants to convince a court that no genuine issues of fact exist and that summary judgment is warranted.  But as this case also demonstrates, that does not mean that plaintiffs can “sleep at the wheel,” so to speak, when disclosing infringement or damages theories during discovery. READ MORE

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