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 Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc., IPR2017-00651 (PTAB Apr. 12, 2023) (per curiam), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) found that petitioner Ventex Co., Ltd.’s (“Ventex) failure to disclose the existence of an agreement with a time-barred real party in interest unnecessarily delayed the proceedings and awarded over $32,000 in sanctions to the patent owner Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. (“Columbia”).
In Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc., 8-22-cv-01979 (CDCA Mar. 1, 2023)( John A. Kronstadt), the Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s indirect patent infringement claims for failure to sufficiently allege Defendant “made” the accused product. Plaintiff had argued that using the patented methods in the design process, which guides the subsequent manufacturing process, is sufficient to state a claim. However, the Court held the Plaintiff provides no authority supporting the contention that the use of a method to design a product is the same as the use of a method to manufacture the product, as contemplated by the statute.
In Pictometry International Corp. v. Roofr, Inc., the court found the plaintiff’s aerial roof measurement patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter and therefore granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Continue Reading District Court Finds Asserted Claims of Aerial Roof Measurement Patent Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
In Shenzhen Chengront Technology Co., Ltd v. Besign Direct et al, 1-22-cv-10281 (SDNY Dec. 9, 2022) (Jennifer L. Rochon), Judge Rochon of the Southern District of New York denied a Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and cited the Plaintiff’s ten-month delay in filing suit as the primary reasoning for denying the TRO.
Continue Reading District Court Finds Ten-Month Delay in Filing Wants Denial of TRO
