An unpublished decision from the Northern District of California emphasizes how important it is for attorneys to follow patent local rules.

Patent local rules are rules that many federal district courts have for patent infringement cases. These rules supplement the regular local rules for that court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and allow the courts that have a lot of patent infringement cases to more efficiently manage those cases. Patent local rules are also helpful to the parties and their counsel, as they provide a standard structure and some certainty to the litigation process.
Continue Reading Make Sure You Follow the Patent Local Rules!

In f’real Foods, LLC et al v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. et al, 1-16-cv-00041 (DDE 2020-07-16, Order) (Colm F. Connolly), plaintiffs freal Foods, LLC and Rich Products Corporation sued defendants Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. and Hershey Creamery Company for infringement of four patents on four accused products that are high performance blenders manufactured by Hamilton Beach. After a four-day jury trial, the jury found that all four accused products infringed various claims of the asserted patents, and that none of the asserted patents are invalid. The Court then turned to the plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction.

The Court first noted that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate the four eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388,391 (2006) factors: “( 1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and ( 4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” To satisfy the irreparable injury factor, a patentee must establish ( 1) that absent an injunction it will suffer irreparable injury and (2) that a sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the injury to the infringement. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court has cautioned lower courts that “[a]n injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course” and when “a less drastic remedy … [is] sufficient to redress [ a plaintiffs] injury, no recourse to the additional and extraordinary relief of an injunction [is] warranted.”
Continue Reading Irreparable Harm for Permanent Injunction Supported by Lost Profits Award

An unborn baby’s DNA (“fetal DNA”) can be used to determine the sex of the baby as well as to test for conditions such as Down’s syndrome.  In the past, procedures to get samples of fetal DNA for testing involved sticking a large needle through the abdominal wall and into the uterus of the mother to obtain amniotic fluid, but such procedures are invasive and can be life threatening in some cases.  Sequenom Inc. devised and patented less invasive options and licensed them to Illumina, Inc.  Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. and others, however, challenged the patent eligibility of those options when accused of patent infringement.

Specifically, the various lawsuits have repeatedly brought into question whether the patent claims for these new prenatal tests and related methods are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 or if they are merely directed to ineligible natural phenomena.  In fact, in 2015, the Federal Circuit found Sequenom and Illumina’s patents (the “Original Patents”) were invalid as unpatentable because they were directed to a natural phenomenon.  This ruling raised many concerns in the industry as to which, if any, inventions of this type could be protected.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit: Sequenom’s Fetal DNA Claims Are Patent Eligible

It has become commonplace for companies such as Google to use local servers to provide faster service to customers.  This practice has raised the question as to whether those local servers constitute “a regular and established place of business” for the purposes of establishing venue in patent infringement suits in the districts where the servers are located.

Specifically, the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), limits the districts where patent infringement cases can be filed to either (1) where the defendant resides, which for a corporation is where it is incorporated, or (2) where the defendant has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement.
Continue Reading Google’s Servers Do Not Constitute a Regular and Established Place of Business for Patent Venue

The federal patent laws provide for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in exceptional patent infringement cases.  35 U.S.C. §285.  An exceptional case is determined based on the totality of the circumstances.  A case can be exceptional due to a substantive legal position taken by a party or a party’s unreasonable litigation tactics.  Courts can and will award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendant if the plaintiff was not justified in filing a patent infringement suit in the first place by failing to conduct a proper investigation of infringement before filing suit.
Continue Reading Do Your Homework Before Suing for Patent Infringement!