Not Enough Nexuses for Daubert.
1.4.09 •In Rambus v. Hynix, 5:05CV334 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2008), at docket entry #2997, Judge Whyte largely rejected proffered expert testimony on the “secondary considerations” that indicate nonobviousness. A showing of these indicia of nonobviousness has grown in importance since the Supreme Court lowered the pedal against obvious combination patents, in KSR v. Teleflex. [...]
Attorney, Newly Merged In, and Entire Firm Disqualified in DRAM suit.
12.18.08 •After some 350 docket entries, a firm that was representing certain opt-out plaintiffs in the DRAM antitrust case was disqualified in Unisys Corp. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 3:06-CV-2915 (N.D. Cal. 12/18/2008). The D.C. firm had merged in a California firm in Oct. 2008, which brought in as a partner an attorney who had represented an [...]
Alleged Infringing Gift Can Say “You’re Not Fat.”
12.16.08 •The prior post about magnetic toy blocks might not have suggested a preferred embodiment for a gift to/from a patent attorney. Consider then, the alleged infringing “Bodyfat Analyzer and Scale” products in the recent suit, Tanita Corp. v. Homedics-USA, Inc., 1:08-CV-7145 (N.D. Il., filed 12/12/08). Perhaps this gift idea is not new, since some patents acknowledge it long was [...]
SDCal Allows Subject-Matter Conflict Suit To Proceed.
12.8.08 •Claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty proceeded past summary judgment motions in Vaxiion Therapeutics v. Foley & Lardner, 3-07-CV-280 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2008). A subject-matter conflict, or technology conflict, was alleged based on patent attorneys in the firm’s San Diego and D.C. offices filing applications for separate companies, both claiming “minicell” technologies. The [...]
The Mark IV Procedure: USMJ, USDJ, Markman, CAFC, then Reducere?
12.4.08 •It was Judge Longobardi in Delaware who I recall asking: ‘how many times do you patent attorneys expect me to try your case?’ What recalled that was the Magistrate’s R&R preliminarily construing claims terms for the District Judge to use on a preliminary injunction motion in Symbol Technol. v. Janam Technol., 1:08CV340-JJF (D. Del. 12/1/2008).
Referral [...]
Standards Setting Decision of Federal Circuit Will Guide NDCal Antitrust Cases.
12.2.08 •Technology standardization is viral to expanding tech markets. Offering standardized components or end-use products can enable multiple entrants to gain access to emerging markets. Countervailing concerns, arising from patent rights bundled into standards, were adjudged and affirmed in the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Qualcomm v. Broadcom (Dec. 1, 2008). While the rulings in that case [...]
Trade Secrets Circulated Under NDAs, and False Advertising Claims Survive Summary Judgment.
11.26.08 •Silicon Image v. Analogix, 3:07-CV-0653-JCS (N.D. Cal. 11/21/2008).
Competitors in the HDMI interface market got into suit when Silicon tried to enjoin Analogix’ chips that allegedly embodied trade secrets and infringed copyrighted source code. In January, the injunction was denied, and early trial date was set. After Silicon amended to add business interference and false advertising [...]
J. Whyte Navigates GPS Patent Tying Case.
11.24.08 •Tele Atlas NV v. NAVTEQ, 5:05-CV-1673 (N.D. Cal. 10/28/2008).
To win share in the dashboard GPS device market requires functional software and up-to-date mapping data. With both, men need never to stop and ask directions.
Allegedly, Navteq tied licenses for key map display patents with purchases of its map databases. Judge Whyte’s decision charts the gauntlet against [...]