Photo of Eric Caligiuri

Eric Caligiuri

Subscribe to Eric Caligiuri's Posts

Eric Caligiuri advises domestic and international clients through complex intellectual property disputes. Mr. Caligiuri’s practice at Weintraub Tobin focuses on patent and trade secret litigation in federal district courts, California state courts, and before the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Follow: Read more about Eric CaligiuriEric's Linkedin Profile

In Mobile Equity Corp. v. Walmart Inc., 2-21-cv-00126 (EDTX Sep. 8, 2022) (Roy S. Payne), the Court found that the asserted claims were not directed towards an abstract idea and did not encompass unpatentable subject matter and therefore were not invalid under 35 U.S.C § 101.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 101, “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” A claim falls outside of 35 U.S.C § 101 where (1) it is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not add enough to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. …
Continue Reading District Court Finds Mobile Payment Patents Not Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

In Jacobs et al v. The Journal Publishing Company et al, 1-21-cv-00690, District Judge Martha Vazquez of the District Court of New Mexico recently held Plaintiffs’ twenty-two-month delay in filing suit rebutted any presumption of irreparable harm for alleged copyright violations, and accordingly denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Continue Reading District Court Rules Twenty-Two Month Delay in Filing Copyright Case Favors Denying Plaintiffs’ Request for Preliminary Injunction

In Munchkin, Inc. v. Tomy International, Inc., 1-18-cv-06337 (NDIL May. 24, 2022) the Court considered the permissible extent of attorney participation in the preparation of an expert report. The Court did so in response to plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant’s technical expert for failing to prepare his own report. Specifically, plaintiff Munchkin sought to exclude the opinion of defendant TOMY’s technical expert, Jesse Darley, who offered opinions regarding non-infringement.
Continue Reading District Court Considers Acceptable Limits to Attorney Participation in Drafting of Expert Reports

In California Costume Collections, Inc v. Pandaloon, LLC, 2-21-cv-01323 (CDCA Apr. 7, 2022) (John W. Holcomb), the Central District of California recently considered whether a plaintiff plead an inequitable conduct claim with the required particularity concerning knowledge of materiality. In the case, Plaintiff California Costume Collections (“CCC”) filed its Complaint against Defendant Pandaloon, LLC (“Pandaloon”) for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of U.S. Design Patent No. D806,325 (the “D325 Patent”) for a “Pet Costume.” In response, Pandaloon filed a Motion to dismiss Count Three of the Complaint—in which CCC alleges that the D325 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct—on the ground that it fails to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Continue Reading District Court Dismiss Inequitable Conduct Claim Alleging Inferred Knowledge of Prior Art Based on Wide Spread Availability

In Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., et. al v. E-One, Inc. et. al, 8-18-cv-00617 (MDFL Feb. 16, 2022) (Thomas P. Barber) the Court denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for pre-judgment interest that would have accrued during a stay due to COVID-19. In the case, Defendants were found liable for infringing certain claims in Plaintiffs’ asserted patent and the jury awarded Plaintiffs damages of $1,287,854 in lost profits and $170,500 in reasonable royalties. The parties did not dispute that an award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest was appropriate along with the damages award. Instead, the dispute was to the accrual time, rate, and calculation of prejudgment interest.
Continue Reading District Court Denies Prejudgment Interest Accrued During COVID-19 Delay