Archive | Discovery RSS feed for this section

Inadequate Infringement Contentions Are Struck

Because of insufficiencies in a plaintiff’s infringement contentions, a plaintiff was precluded from asserting the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) concerning any claim, and was also precluded from asserting any infringement with respect to one means-plus-function claim. Dynetix Design Solutions v. Synopsys, Inc., No. C 11-5973 PSG (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013). Regarding the doctrine of […]

Read full story

Federal Circuit Reverses Decision to Unseal Documents in Apple-Samsung Litigation

The Federal Circuit has reversed District Judge Koh’s order that certain confidential documents of both Apple and Samsung be unsealed in those parties’ high-profile patent litigation. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Nos. 1012-1600, 1606, 2013-1146 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 23, 2013). Because filing papers under seal is such a routine part of patent (and […]

Read full story

Patent Litigation Protective Orders: Patent Prosecution Bars, Source Code

In a lawsuit where the plaintiff, Unwired Planet, had asserted 10 patents against Apple, the parties disagreed about the appropriate scope of a protective order. Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple. Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00505-RCJ (VPC) (D. Nev. April 11, 2013). One disagreement concerned whether a patent prosecution bar should prevent the plaintiff’s litigation counsel from participating […]

Read full story

Patent Defendant Allowed Discovery of Non-Accused Products

What is the permissible scope of discovery related to a defendants’ non-accused products in a patent case? In Positive Techs., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., No.: 11-cv-2226 SI (KAW) (N.D. Cal. Feb 26, 2013), the defendants were denied a protective order after the plaintiff sought discovery related to non-accused products; the plaintiff contended that the […]

Read full story

Discovery Not Limited to Patent Infringement Contentions

Because the Eastern District of Texas does not limit the scope of discovery to the plaintiff’s infringement contentions, the court in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, No. 2:06-CV-42-JRG (E.D. Texas, July 18, 2012), granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel one of the defendants to produce a corporate representative to testify regarding various of that defendant’s […]

Read full story

Is a Patent Infringed by Activation of Software Abroad from a System in the U.S.?

In a discovery context, at least, one should assume that a U.S.-based system that activates software sold abroad can infringe a U.S. patent.  Prism Technologies v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. 8:10CV220 (D. Neb. July 17, 2012).  Prism sought financial data and activation data “pertaining to Symantec’s use of its U.S.-based software activation system to activate […]

Read full story

Third Party Protected From Producing Source Code in Patent Case

Can a third party be compelled to produce source code in a patent infringement lawsuit?  Not when its concerns about the security of its source code are well-founded, and when the deposition of a knowledgeable engineer will suffice to answer questions about how the software works, according to a magistrate judge in California.  Realtime Data, […]

Read full story

Past Licenses for Patents-NOT-in-Suit Relevant to a Reasonable Royalty

Could Sprint, having licensed its patents in settlement of litigation, be compelled, in defending subsequent, unrelated litigation, to produce documents related to these licenses?  In a word, yes.  A magistrate judge granted plaintiff High Point’s motion to compel production of Sprint’s license agreements and expert reports, although denying the motion with respect to Sprint’s communications […]

Read full story