Articles Posted in Patent Litigation

Enovsys filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles against AT&T Mobility for infringing two patents: (1) US Patent No. 6,560,461, titled “Authorized Location Reporting Paging System” (“the ‘461 patent”), and (2) US Patent No. 7,925,273, titled “Method and Apparatus for Updating the Location of a Mobile Device Within a Wireless Communication Network” (“the ‘273 patent”). The ‘273 patent is a continuation of the application that resulted in the ‘461 patent, which means the ‘273 patent has the same invention disclosure as the ‘461 patent but with different claimed subject matter or scope.

The ‘461 patent’s invention uses satellites and ground control stations to determine a subscriber’s cell phone location and allows the subscriber to select which users can obtain the subscriber’s whereabouts. The patent also covers relaying the names and locations of nearby stores, restaurants, etc. based on the location of the cell phone. The ‘273 patent relates to a method of controlling the time intervals between updates to the cell phone’s location. The complaint accuses several AT&T applications of infringing the patents, including AT&T FamilyMap, AT&T Navigator, TeleNav Track, and Xora GPS TimeTrack.

Enovsys also alleges that Sprint-Nextel is currently licensing the subject patents in addition to others. The earlier Enovsys v. Nextel-Sprint lawsuit resulted in a jury award of $2.78 million in damages and eliminated the lack of standing defense. In the Nextel case, the Federal Circuit – aside from rejecting Nextel’s invalidity and non-infringement arguments – affirmed the jury’s verdict that the inventor’s ex-wife did not have a community property interest in the patents and did not need to be a named plaintiff.

Los Angeles, CA – Genentech and City of Hope are the owners of U.S. Patent No. 7,923,221 (“the Cabilly III patent”), entitled “Methods of Making Antibody Heavy and Light Chains Having Specificity for a Desired Antigen,” issued on April 12, 2011. Plaintiffs wasted no time suing GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, and Lonza Biologics for patent infringement, which suit was filed on the patent’s issue date. The ‘221 patent claims priority to the Cabilly II patent, filed in 1988, which in turn claims priority to the Cabilly I patent, filed in 1983. The Cabilly III patent is the most recent arsenal introduced into years of patent lawsuits, appeals, and USPTO re-examination proceedings. Details here. The Cabilly II patent was the subject of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in MedImmune v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007), which eliminated the “reasonable apprehension of suit” test for establishing declaratory judgment jurisdiction.

The Cabilly patents relate to methods for producing antibodies using recombinant DNA. Plaintiffs allege that HGS and GSK have entered into a co-development and commercialization agreement for the development and sale of Benlysta®. Plaintiffs further allege that Lonza Biologics manufactures ofatumumab in the United Kingdom and supplies it to GSK, with knowledge that GSK incorporates ofatumumab into the final Arzerra™ product.

The case is Genentech, Inc. et al. v. Glaxo Group Limited, et al., CV11-03065 SVW (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Washington, D.C. – The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) overturned the district court’s finding of non-infringement. After Uniloc won a jury award of $388 million, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of non-infringement and no willfulness on Microsoft’s post-trial motions. Details blogged here.

In reversing the district court’s decision, the CAFC found that “[b]ecause the jury’s verdict on infringement was supported by substantial evidence, this court reverses the district court’s grant of JMOL of non-infringement; this court also reverses the district court’s alternative grant of a new trial on infringement as an abuse of discretion.” The CAFC, however, affirmed the district court’s finding of no willful infringement because “the jury’s verdict on willfulness was not supported by substantial evidence.” The CAFC further affirmed the district court’s denial of Microsoft’s motion for JMOL of invalidity.

As to damages, the CAFC granted a new trial because “the jury’s damages award was fundamentally tainted by the use of a legally inadequate methodology.” In doing so, the CAFC disbanded the 25% rule of thumb (25%/75% royalty split between licensor/licensee) as a basis for royalties that it had previously “tolerated”: “This court now holds as a matter of Federal Circuit law that the 25 percent rule of thumb is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation. Evidence relying on the 25 percent rule of thumb is thus inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it fails to tie a reasonable royalty base to the facts of the case at issue.”

Santa Ana, CA – Peter Van Bregmann is suing Burton Snowboards for infringing on a snowboard binding patent. Plaintiff alleges that in 1996 he met with Burton and after signing a confidentiality agreement, Plaintiff showed his invention to Burton, but it was not interested. On March 2, 1999, Plaintiff was issued U.S. Patent No. 5,876,045, entitled “Angularly Adjustable Snowboard Boot Binding,” which generally relates to a lever system that allows for convenient adjustment of boot bindings, whereby the use of tools is eliminated.

Defendant is accused of willfully infringing the patent by manufacturing a snowboard boot binding marketed under the “Burton Progression Custom Rental Binding” mark. The case is Bregmann v. Burton Snowboards North America, SACV-10-1199 DOC (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Santa Ana, CA – Kruse Technology has filed a patent infringement suit against Defendants Daimler AG; Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC; Detroit Diesel Corporation; Freightliner Corporation; Western Star Truck Sales, Inc.; Volkswagen AG; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi of America, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Cummins Inc.; and Chrysler Group LLC. The Defendants are accused of manufacturing engines that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,265,562, 6,058,904, and 6,405,704. The ‘562, ‘904, and ‘704 patents are all entitled “Internal Combustion Engine With Limited Temperature Cycle”, but have different claims.

The complaint, however, does not appear to provide sufficient information to pass a Rule 12 motion to dismiss. In 2007, the Supreme Court’s Twombly decision stated that under Rule 8(a)(2) a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). In 2009, the Supreme Court’s Iqbal decision expanded the application of Twombly to all civil cases. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). Thus, a complaint will be dismissed uner Rule 12(b)(6) if it fails to meet the Twombly pleading standard. See e.g. Anticancer, Inc. v. Xenogen Corp., 248 F.R.D. 278 (S.D. Cal. 2007)

The case is Kruse Technology Partnership v. Daimler AG, et al., SACV-10-1066 AG (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Baby products maker, Munchkin, Inc., wants the Court to rule that its Snack Catcher product does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,656,514 (“the ‘514 patent”). It also seeks declaratory judgment of invalidity. The product at issue is a container with several flexible flaps that form the lid and allow a user’s hand to be inserted through the flaps to pull out a snack. In the event that the container is tipped over, the flaps prevent the snacks from falling out.

The complaint alleges that Defendant Venita Tubbs has threatened, via her attorney’s cease and desist letter, Munchkin with a patent infringement lawsuit unless it stops selling the Snack Catcher product. Instead of operating under a cloud of uncertainty, Muchkin has taken matters into its own hands and filed suit to adjudicate this dispute. The case is Munchkin, Inc. v. Venita Tubbs, CV10-4074 RSWL (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Los Angeles, CA – Plaintiff Anthony J. Antonious is the inventor of the “Metalwood Type Golf Club Head,” which is the subject of U.S. Design Patent D499,157. Simply put, a design patent covers the ornamental design or aesthetic configuration of a depicted product. Whereas a utility patent covers the way a product works or is manufactured, e.g. a new club head manufactured to have a larger sweet spot. But I digress. In this design patent case, Plaintiff alleges that Tour Edge’s golf club heads, including the Tour Edge V25, Tour 9 Proto, and Tour Edge Bazooka, incorporate the patented design and infringe the ‘157 patent. Plaintiff further alleges inducement of and contributory patent infringement. The case is Trust of Anthony J. Antonious v. Tour Edge Golf Manufacturing, Inc., CV10-02636 RGK (C.D. Cal. 2010).