Photo of Eric Caligiuri

Eric Caligiuri

Subscribe to Eric Caligiuri's Posts

Eric Caligiuri advises domestic and international clients through complex intellectual property disputes and transactions. His practice at Weintraub Tobin focuses on intellectual property litigation in federal district courts, California state courts, and before the International Trade Commission (ITC).  Mr. Caligiuri is also admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and handles patent and trademark prosecution.  In addition, Mr. Caligiuri counsels clients on data, privacy, and contract related issues.

Follow:Read more about Eric CaligiuriEric's Linkedin Profile

In SSMiller IP LLC v. Sugar Beets LLC, 2-22-cv-02576 (CDCA Oct. 21, 2022) District Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California found the parties did not sufficiently meet and confer as required by the Local Rules before Plaintiff filed its motion to dismiss Defendant’s noninfringement and invalidity counterclaims. The Court, in its discretion, still considered the motion to dismiss but ultimately summarily denied plaintiff’s motion.
Continue Reading District Court Finds Plaintiff Failed to Meet Pre-Filing Meet and Confer Requirements

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