In Buergofol GmbH v. Omega Liner Company, Inc., 4-22-cv-04112 (DSD Jul. 13, 2023) (Karen E. Schreier), the court granted the defendant’s motion to compel and awarded monetary sanctions after the plaintiff failed to respond at all to discovery requests that the plaintiff had objected to as overbroad because the court ruled the plaintiff “still had an obligation to respond to the extent it did not object.”Continue Reading Court Orders Monetary Sanctions after Plaintiff Fails to Provide any Response to Allegedly Overbroad Discovery Requests
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals continues to strike down patents directed to abstract ideas under the Alice test for patent subject matter eligibility. In People.ai, Inc. v. Clari Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023) U.S. App. LEXIS 8294, the court invalidated seven patents owned by People.ai.Continue Reading A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable!
In GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2-22-cv-07556 (CDCA May. 24, 2023) (Shashi H. Kewalramani), the Central District of California denied Defendant Netflix’s attempts to compel Plaintiff GoTV Streaming to provide documents and further information as to the source of the litigation funding that GoTV received in conjunction with the patent litigation. Continue Reading Court Denies Attempts to Compel Disclosure of Litigation Funding Documents
In 2018, United Cannabis Corporation (“UCANN”) sued Pure Hemp Collective (“Pure Hemp”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,730,911 (the “‘911 patent”), entitled “Cannabis Extracts and Methods of Preparing and Using the Same. The ‘911 patent relates to “extraction of pharmaceutically active components … more particularly … botanical drug substance (B.D.S.) comprising cannabinoids obtained by extraction from cannabis.”Continue Reading Attorney Fees Denied Due to Lack of Support in Cannabis Litigation Record
An inter partes review is a procedure in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board whereby a U.S. patent can be challenged.
Continue Reading Rules to Challenge Patents May Loosen Up