1 / 27

Key ED Texas Patent Decisions & Federal Circuit Trends

16th Annual Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference October 24-26, 2012 – Plano, Texas. Key ED Texas Patent Decisions & Federal Circuit Trends. Hon. Roy S. Payne, Marshall, Texas Jennifer Ainsworth, Tyler, Texas Peter Corcoran, Houston, Texas Michael C. Smith, Marshall, Texas.

lloyd
Download Presentation

Key ED Texas Patent Decisions & Federal Circuit Trends

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 16th Annual Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Conference October 24-26, 2012 – Plano, Texas Key ED Texas Patent Decisions & Federal Circuit Trends Hon. Roy S. Payne, Marshall, Texas Jennifer Ainsworth, Tyler, Texas Peter Corcoran, Houston, Texas Michael C. Smith, Marshall, Texas The 1901 Harrison County Courthouse (restored 2009) Marshall, Texas J. Riely Gordon, architect

  2. Review of… • Leading ED Texas patent decisions from 2011-2012. • Trends in Federal Circuit.

  3. Eastern District of Texas cases • Extensions (to answer/in general) • Severance / consolidation • Amending contentions • Discovery • Lead defendant • Cost shifting • Settlement negotiations • Limiting claims/prior art references • Motions to stay due to pending cases. • Court costs • Willful infringement

  4. Extensions To Answer/ Extensions in General

  5. Extensions (to answer) • Tallgrass Prairie Management, LLC v. Microsoft, et al., 2:11cv411 (7/27/12) (Schneider, J.) • Phoenix v. GEICO, 2:12cv214 (7/19/12) (Payne, J.)

  6. Extensions (in general) • Docket control / discovery orders • Protective orders • Notice of mediator • E-discovery order

  7. Severance/consolidation

  8. Severance/consolidation • Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 6:11cv495 (8/10/12) (Davis, J.) • Rotatable Technologies v. Apple, et al., 2:12cv292 (8/17/12) (Gilstrap, J.) • Swipe Innovations v. Elavon, 9:12cv40 (8/14/12) (Clark, J.) • Oasis v. Carbonite, et al, 4:10cv435 (8/15/12) (Mazzant, J.) • TQP v. Aflac, 2:11cv397 (8/16/12) (Craven, J.)

  9. Amending Contentions

  10. Amending Contentions • EON Corp. v. T-Mobile USA, et al, 6:10cv379 (1/24/12) (Love, J.) • Lake Cherokee v. Bass Computers, et al., 2:10cv216 (7/2/12) (Gilstrap, J.)

  11. Discovery

  12. Discovery - "lead defendant" • Geotag v. Circle K Stores, Inc., et al., 2:11cv405 (8/14/12) (Schneider, J.)

  13. Discovery – cost shifting • MicroUnity v. Apple, et al., 2:10cv91 (6/19/12) (Payne, J.) (citing FRCP 37(a)(5)(A))

  14. Discovery - settlement negotiations • Hill v. Abt, 2:09cv313 (E.D. Tex. 4/4/12) (Gilstrap, J.) (citing Clear with Computers LLC v. Bergdorf Goodman, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 2d 662 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (Davis, C.J.))

  15. Limiting number of terms/claims/prior art references

  16. Limiting number of terms/claims/prior art references • Unified Messaging Solutions v. Facebook/Google, 6:11cv120/464 7/12/12) (Davis, C.J.) (reduce claims to 20; reduce invalidity contentions to 4 “distinct bases of invalidity” for each claim) • Eon v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 6:10-cv-00379, (9/10/12) (Love, J.) (reduce to 4 “distinct bases for invalidity, including obviousness combinations”) • Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 2:07-cv-00473, (7/29/12) (Ward, J.) (limiting to 12 “anticipation or obvious charts total” for all claims) • Mosaid v. Freescale, 6:11cv173 (8/28/12) (Davis, J.) (4 total references per claim) • Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure, Inc., 2008 WL 2485426 at *1 (6/13/08) (Clark, J.) (limit to ten terms and three claims) • DDR v. Digital River, 2:06cv42 (Gilstrap, J.) (request for 4 prior art references limit denied). • MicroUnity v. Apple, 2:10cv091 (6/7/12) (Payne, J.) (motion to limit claims denied).

  17. Motion to Stay Due to Prior Pending Litigation

  18. Motion to Stay Due to Prior Pending Litigation • Levine v. Casio America, Inc. et al., 2:11cv56 (5/2/12) (Schneider, J.)

  19. Court Costs

  20. Court Costs • Eolas Technologies v. Adobe Systems, et al., 6:09cv446 (E.D. Tex. 7/19/12) (Davis, C.J.)

  21. Willful infringement

  22. Willful infringement • SSL Services v. Citrix, 2:08cv158 (9/17/12) (Gilstrap, J.)

  23. and speaking of the Federal Circuit…

  24. Federal Circuit Trends • Bard • In re EMC • Laserdynamics • Retractable Technologies

  25. Federal Circuit Trends for EDTX

  26. ED Case Wins in Fed Cir by Party

  27. The End Michael C. Smith Siebman, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP Marshall, Texas michaelsmith@siebman.com www.EDTexweblog.com

More Related