Archive | Civil Procedure

Common Interest Privilege Covers Non-Attorneys in Patent Case

The District of Massachusetts held that the common-interest exception to third-party privilege waiver protected communications disclosed to a licensee and non-attorney expert. Crane Security Technologies, Inc. v.  Rolling Optics, AB, No. 14-12428-LTS (D. Mass. Feb 3, 20017).  Crane Security Techs. Inc sued Rolling Optics, AB for infringing patents related to anti-counterfeiting measures on currency, e.g., metallic […]

Continue Reading

Alice Changed Law, No Issue Preclusion on Patent-Eligibility

Where a patent had survived a challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in prior litigation between the parties, issue preclusion did not prevent a court from revisiting the question, and invalidating the patent claims, because, the court said, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), represented a change in the law.  […]

Continue Reading

Unsupportable Claim Construction Warrants 12(b)(6) Dismissal

Where the plaintiff could only rely on a construction of a patent claim term that was implausible, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6).  Bartonfalls, LLC v. Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-1127-JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas, March 15, 2017).  Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,917,922 and 8,769,561 recited a “TV […]

Continue Reading

Pleading Requirements for Standard-Based Patent Infringement

To “simply identify a technical standard without further explanation” is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint for patent infringement, says a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas.  Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, Civil Action Nos.  6:16-cv-446-448-RSW-KNM (E.D. Texas March 3, 2017).  The court recommended dismissal of claims […]

Continue Reading

Does Pleading Patent Infringement Require a Claim Chart?

Pleading patent infringement does not require a claim chart, says a court considering the requirements for pleading both direct and indirect infringement under FRCP 8 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Crypto Research, LLC v. Assa Abloy, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 1718 (AMD) […]

Continue Reading

Another Reason Why Ex Parte Reexaminations May Not Be the Best Way to Challenge Patent Claims

Despite the defendant’s diligence in seeking an ex parte re-examination of the patent-in-suit by the USPTO shortly after being sued, a district court has denied the defendant’s motion for a stay.  Pro-Troll, Inc., v. Shortbus Flashers, Inc., No. 16-cv-04062-VC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2016).   The court’s reasoning included in an interesting comparison of ex parte […]

Continue Reading

Communications with Patent Agents and Foreign Associates – Recent Developments on Privilege

If you are, or work with, a patent agent – or if you are at one end or the other of communications between U.S. attorneys and foreign attorneys and/or patent agents – this recent presentation by my colleague Peter Keros has some useful information.  The basic takeaways are these.  First, patent agents are treated like […]

Continue Reading

Complaint Dismissed Two Uncharted Patent Claims Under Iqbal/Twombley Notice Pleading Standard

For those paying attention to the evolving law of notice pleading patent infringement, a Florida court confirmed that patent plaintiffs face a raised bar under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). The plaintiff, who provided a claim chart alleging a theory that one patent […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes