United States: IP Newsflash - April 8, 2016

DISTRICT COURT

Expert's Failure to Disclose Certain Materials Relied upon in Forming Opinion Warrants Mistrial

On February 29, 2016, Judge Robert Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia declared a mistrial as to two patents-in-suit, in view of plaintiff's failure to disclose evidence relied upon by its infringement expert. The court declared the mistrial to provide the parties with an opportunity to engage in curative expert discovery related to the undisclosed materials, with reasonable fees and costs to be paid by plaintiff.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung") brought a patent infringement action against NVIDIA Corp. ("NVIDIA") alleging infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,287,902 (the "'902 patent") and 8,252,675 (the "'675 patent"). Samsung alleged that NVIDIA sold, offered for sale and imported the accused products from non-party Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC). In the absence of evidence from TSMC regarding the infringing products, Samsung retained an expert, Dr. Jeongdong Choe, to "tear down" the allegedly infringing chips and offer an opinion regarding their design. Under the parties' Stipulated Discovery Order and NVIDIA's discovery requests, all materials relied upon by an expert in forming opinions (including any reverse engineering documents relied upon by Dr. Choe) were to be produced.

Ultimately, Dr. Choe offered an expert report that cited numerous cross-sectional images of the allegedly infringing chips. However, during cross-examination at trial, the court found that Dr. Choe, in forming his opinions, had relied on images that had never been disclosed in his expert reports or to counsel for NVIDIA in other discovery. In particular, Dr. Choe testified that he had reviewed and relied on a number of "EDS and EEL images" that were not disclosed. The court made clear in its opinion that "Dr. Choe did not act duplicitously or with any awareness that he was not fulfilling Samsung's obligations." Further, "[t]he Court [had] no doubt that" Samsung held a good-faith belief that the reports complied with the relevant obligations. Nevertheless, the court applied 4th Circuit precedent to conclude that sanctions were warranted because (a) Samsung had violated a discovery order, and (b) the violation was neither harmless nor substantially justified. As to the latter finding, the court noted that, according to NVIDIA, some of the undisclosed materials demonstrated that silicon was present in the allegedly infringing chips, which was an important aspect of NVIDIA's non-infringement defense.

Accordingly, the court considered a number of factors to determine the appropriate sanction, including (a) the lack of bad faith, (b) potential prejudice to NVIDIA (c) the relative need for deterrence and (d) the availability of less drastic sanctions while still "leveling the playing field." Based on its analysis, the court denied NVIDIA's motion to strike the testimony and expert reports of Dr. Choe and instead granted NVIDIA's motion for a mistrial coupled with limited cost-shifting, finding that to be the "least drastic sanction" that "best suits the conduct in question and the purposes of discover sanctions."

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 314cv00757 (E.D. Va. Feb. 29, 2016) (Payne, J.).

Author:

Ashraf Fawzy

Fed. Civ. R. 9(b) Does Not Require That an Inequitable Conduct Defense Include Allegations That Intent to Deceive Is the Single Most Reasonable Inference to Be Drawn from the Facts

Plaintiff Seville moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to strike the defendants' inequitable conduct defense and corresponding counterclaim from the defendants' answer on the basis that the defendants did not properly plead intent to deceive the Patent Office. The court denied Seville's motion to strike and explained that the standard for pleading inequitable conduct is different from what needs to bee proven to ultimately prevail on the issue.

In denying Seville's motion to strike, the court reviewed the requirements that a party must satisfy to sufficiently plead inequitable conduct under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), versus what a party must do to prove the intent prong of inequitable conduct. Under Rule 9(b), a party may properly allege "knowledge" and "intent" generally, and the party must specifically plead "sufficient allegations of material underlying facts from which a court may reasonably infer" that a specific person knew of withheld material information or knew that a material misrepresentation was false, and that the specific person withheld or misrepresented the material information with the specific intent to deceive the Patent Office.

Seville challenged the defendants' pleading of inequitable conduct on the basis that the defendants did not plead facts to show that intent to deceive was "the single most reasonable interference" that could be drawn from the alleged conduct. The court explained that such pleading is not required under Rule 9(b). Although, to ultimately prevail on their inequitable conduct claim, the defendants would have to prove specific intent under "the single most reasonable interference" standard, all that is required at the pleading stage is for the defendants to plead allegations of underlying facts from which a court may reasonably infer intent to deceive. Because the defendants plead that Seville and its patent attorney misrepresented the continuity status of the patent at issue and failed to disclose specific prior art to the Patent Office, among other failures, and since the court was required to accept the defendants' allegations as true at the pleading stage, the court held that the defendants alleged sufficient facts from which the court could reasonably infer that Seville and its attorney engaged in conduct with the intent to deceive the Patent Office, and thus satisfied the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b).

Seville Classics, Inc. v. Neatfreak Group, Inc., et al., CV 1506237

SJO (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2016).

Author:

Angie Verrecchio

Delaware Court Awards $1 Million in Fees Due to Plaintiff's "Tortuous Path to Resolution"

A district court in Delaware granted defendant Jack Henry & Associates' motion for attorneys' fees and ordered plaintiff Joao Bock Transaction Systems to pay $1 million in attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

The order came following the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the district court's order invalidating plaintiff's online-transaction security patent as claiming only an abstract idea. In awarding the fees to Defendant, Judge Robinson stated that "[t]aking into account that patent cases are complex and patent litigation is an expensive proposition, nevertheless, the court will award attorney fees of $1,000,000 to account for the fact that plaintiff's ever changing litigation strategies (including its claim construction positions) created a tortuous path to resolution."

In finding that the case was exceptional, the court noted that plaintiff initially accused more than 80 products that allegedly infringed, and later "changed the identity of the seven 'representative' products at least four times by July 2014 . . . and included six claims that had not been asserted before." The court also noted that during the claim construction process, "plaintiff had turned the principles of claim construction on their head, by providing definitions for certain claim language during the claim amendment process that took place in the PTO from October 2004 to September 2005. Such definitions were not included in the specification, were not the subject of any commentary by the examiner, were made years after the earliest priority date, and were added for litigation purposes."

The court rejected plaintiff's complaint that defendant's resistance to the idea of representative products was the reason for the discovery burden in the case. Specifically, the court stated that "plaintiff refused to narrow the scope of its infringement allegations for over a year and significant discovery was performed before plaintiff suggested this approach." Moreover, "[p]laintiff's claim construction positions (addressed above) and its lack of a coherent infringement theory (evidenced by its shifting infringement positions) contributed greatly to the discovery burden." The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the area of law surrounding 35 U.S.C. § 101 was evolving, finding "[t]hat defendant's motion for invalidity was granted on the § 101 issue does not negate the 'exceptional' nature of the case, when the record indicates that plaintiff pursued litigation so inefficiently as to be objectively unreasonable and burdensome for defendant and the court."

Joao Bock Transaction Systems LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates Inc., 112cv01138

(D. Del. March 31, 2016)

(Robinson).

Author:

Jay K. Tatachar

For Purposes of Evaluating Personal Jurisdiction in the Context of a Declaratory Judgment, Defendant's Activities Must Relate to the Defense of Validity or Enforcement of the Asserted Patents

In granting-in-part and denying-in-part defendant's motion to dismiss claims based on lack of personal jurisdiction, a district court held that personal jurisdiction for declaratory judgment claims relating to noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability require additional activities by defendant that relate to the defense of the validity or enforcement of the asserted patents.

In response to licensing letters from defendant, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe the asserted patents, a declaratory judgment that the patents were unenforceable, a claim to correct inventorship, and several state law claims including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Plaintiff alleged that defendant obtained confidential and proprietary information concerning high-performance computing technology and subsequently filed and obtained the asserted patents. According to plaintiff, defendant's employees intentionally acquired substantial amounts of proprietary information from plaintiff's employees located in Washington. In analyzing defendant's motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claims of non-infringement and unenforceability, the court noted that the relevant inquiry for specific personal jurisdiction is to ascertain the extent to which defendant purposefully directed its patent enforcement activities at residents of the forum. The court reasoned that although cease-and-desist letters and licensing negotiations directed at the forum may relate to enforcement activities, without more, such activities are insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction under the "fair play and substantial justice" prong of the due process analysis. These activities must be combined with "other activities" related to the defense or enforcement of the patents. Such "other activities," the court noted, include initiating judicial or extrajudicial enforcement within the forum, entering into an exclusive license agreement, or other undertaking which imposes enforcement obligations with a party residing or regularly doing business in the forum. The court further found that defendant's alleged solicitation of proprietary information from plaintiff's employees did not relate to "enforcement and defense activities" and therefore could not be considered as part of the analysis. The court thus granted defendant's motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claims.

The court, however, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the inventorship claims because plaintiff adequately alleged that defendant purposefully directed its activities at plaintiff's employees located in Washington. The court reasoned that plaintiff's claims arose out of or related to defendant's alleged solicitation of plaintiff's employees and misappropriation of plaintiff's technology. Regarding the remaining state law claims, the court found that pendant personal jurisdiction was applicable because the state law claims "arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts" with plaintiff's inventorship claims.

Cray Inc. v. Raytheon Company, 215cv01127

(W.D. Wash. April 5, 2016, Order) (Robart, J.).

Author:

Eric R. Garcia

PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

PTAB Does Not Automatically Grant Unopposed Motion for Joinder

A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel granted petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s ("Samsung") motion for joinder with IPR201500806, which was filed by Google Inc. and relates to U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 (the "'482 Patent"). Although the patent owner, Summit 6 LLC, did not oppose the motion for joinder, the PTAB still analyzed the motion to determine whether the circumstances warranted joinder.

Samsung's motion for joinder was considered timely under 35 U.S.C. § 42.122(b) because it was filed within one month of the PTAB's decision to institute review of the IPR filed by Google. The oneyear time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) was not applicable because Samsung's petition was accompanied by a motion for joinder. The PTAB considered several factors in granting the motion for joinder. First, the Samsung petition contained identical grounds to the Google petition, so it would not impact the substantive issues before the PTAB. Relatedly, the Samsung petition would not require additional briefing from the patent owner. Second, Samsung represented that joinder would not require modifications to the Scheduling Order. As a result, the PTAB determine that "Samsung has met its burden to demonstrate that joinder with IPR201500806 is warranted under the circumstances."

This opinion appears to indicate that a motion for joinder is not merely pro forma in instances where the parties do not oppose joinder. Rather, the petitioner seeking joinder is still required to establish that joinder is warranted.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. V. Summit 6 LLC, IPR 201600029,

Paper 9 (PTAB Apr. 4, 2016).

Author:

John Wittenzellner

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions