Archive | Civil Procedure RSS feed for this section

Initiation of CBM Review on Section 101 Grounds Justifies Stay of Patent Case

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the decision of Judge Stark in the District of Delaware to stay a lawsuit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582 following the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to institute a Covered Business Method (CBM) review of the ’582 patent. Benefit Funding Systems, LLC v. Advance America Cash Advance […]

Read full story

Goodbye to Form 18?

Form 18 appended to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a form complaint for pleading patent infringement. To the chagrin of many defendants, Form 18 has been used to justify very bare-bones complaints of patent infringement even after the Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombley decisions requiring more detailed pleading. Now Form 18 may be […]

Read full story

Patent “Assignee” Lacks Standing to Sue

Clouding IP lacked standing to sue to enforce a set of patents it had purportedly purchased under a “Patent Assignment Agreement” because rights retained by Symantec, the seller, prevented Clouding from obtaining “substantially all rights” in the patents.  Clouding IP LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01342 (D. Del. Jul 28, 2014). The Court’s consideration of […]

Read full story

Attorneys’ Fees Awarded in Light of Octane Fitness

A plaintiff had licensed a patent to defendants, including a right to sub-license, but excluded certain uses of the claimed method.  The plaintiff then sued the defendants based on those excluded uses.  The defendants were awarded attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where, among other things, the plaintiff had attempted to enforce the patent […]

Read full story

Failure to Meet Indirect Patent Infringement Pleading Standard (and Possible Rule 11 Question)

Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas has granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a complaint of indirect patent infringement where the plaintiff failed to meet the applicable pleading standards.  Babbage Holdings, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-750 (E.D. Tex. May 15, 2014 (and seven related cases).  Further, because Babbage’s original, first amended, and […]

Read full story

A Rare Case? Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Granted Based on Unpatentable Subject Matter

Patent claims directed to “the offer and sale of items to players in the course of gaming” recited an “unpatentable abstract idea,” held the court in Gametek LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. CV 13-2546 RS (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2014).  This holding came in response to defendants’ motions under FRCP 12 for judgment on the […]

Read full story

PTAB Finding of Invalidity Does Not Trump Federal Court’s Final Judgment

The Covered Business Method Patent review procedure created by the America Invents Act may be a powerful tool for attacking business method patents, but CBM cannot overcome all court proceedings, at least if Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:07cv153-RSP (April 21, 2014), is any guide.  In this case, Magistrate Judge Payne held […]

Read full story

Customer Suits Alone Do Not Confer Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction

DataTern, Inc. sued Microsoft’s and SAP’s customers alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,937,402 and 6,101,502.  Microsoft and SAP then brought actions against DataTern seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that it had jurisdiction over all claims except Microsoft’s claims against the ‘402 patent, because DataTern’s claim charts […]

Read full story

Writ of Mandamus in Patent Infringement Venue Transfer Motion

AVS sued Toyota and Gulf States—a Texas-based Toyota dealer—for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas.  Toyota and Gulf States filed a motion (1) to sever the claims against Gulf States; (2) to transfer the claims against Toyota to a more convenient forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); and (3) to stay the claims […]

Read full story

Fee Award Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 Supported by Evidence of Subjective Bad Faith and Objective Baselessness

Awards of attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C § 285 may seem difficult to obtain, given the dual requirement of proving a party’s subjective bad faith, as well as the objective baselessness of its position.  However, as demonstrated in Gabriel Technologies Corp. v.  Qualcomm Inc., No. 2013-1205 (Mar. 18, 2014), some conduct is so egregious that […]

Read full story