Archive | Civil Procedure

Complaint Dismissed to 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

What Is a Party’s Burden in Seeking a Determination of Patent-Ineligibility?

A court denied a patent infringement defendant’s motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6); the defendant, alleging that four patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to recite patent-eligible matter, failed in its burden of stating a representative claim.  JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. Fluidmesh Networks, No. 1-16-cv-00212 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016). The […]

Continue Reading

Some Complaints for Patent Infringement Easily Fail Under Iqbal and Twombley

Here is an example of how the abnegation of Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is changing patent litigation.  In Mike Murphy’s Enters. v. Fineline Indus., LLC, No. 1:16-cv-784-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4 2016), the court granted a Rule12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint alleging infringement of United States Patent No. […]

Continue Reading

No Interlocutory Appeal for Adverse Alice Ruling

Having denied a defendant’s motion to find patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Delaware’s Judge Robinson has now denied the defendant’s request for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).  Improved Search, LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00262 (D. Del. May 6, 2016).  Judge Robinson explained that interlocutory appeal should be exceptional, and should […]

Continue Reading

Patent Invalidation under Alice Held Not to Justify Fee Award

A declaratory judgment plaintiff, having successfully invalidated patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice case, has lost a motion for its attorney fees under 285 U.S.C. § 285. Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp., No. 3-15-cv-00041 (S. D. Cal. April 27, 2016).  The court had earlier granted a motion for summary judgment […]

Continue Reading

Plaintiff Stuck with Collateral Judgment of Patent Invalidity Under Alice in More Ways Than One

Not only did collateral estoppel apply from a prior finding of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but a plaintiff was denied a motion to voluntarily dismiss its claim of patent infringement, the court expressly leaving open the specter of a fee award to the defendant as a prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. § […]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Recognizes Privilege For Patent Agents

The Federal Circuit recently held that there is an independent patent agent privilege, explaining that because prosecuting a patent application before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) constitutes the practice of law, communications with non-attorney patent agents are privileged. In re: Queen’s University at Kingston, No. 2015-145, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259 (Fed. Cir. […]

Continue Reading

More Technical-Seeming Claims Held Patent-Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Patent claims directed to a “payload delivery system” for delivering payloads, i.e., data, “via one or more communication networks” have been held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Novo Transforma Tech., LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.,  Civil Action No. 14-616-RGA (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2015).  As with many recent Section 101 cases, the court granted […]

Continue Reading

Stay Granted Based on Inter Partes Review Petition Filed Four Months Before Patent Lawsuit

Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas has granted a defendant’s motion for a stay based on institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding.  MemSmart Semiconductor Corp. v. AAC Technologies Pte. Ltd., No. 2:14-CV-1107-JRG (E.D. Texas July 10, 2015).  The defendant was able to present strong facts in support of a stay.  Notably, […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes