Qualcomm Lawyers Free To Talk

2008-1348 Qualcomm v. BroadcomSD/CA 05-cv-1958 Qualcomm appeals from Judge Rudi Brewster’s Order of 05 March 2008 finding a Self-Defense Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege.  This order permits Qualcomm’s trial counsel to disclose otherwise privileged information in defending themselves against sanctions. Coverage of this case–and sanctions–has been wide and extensive (e.g., WSJ).  In a nutshell, Qualcomm [...]

Failure To Hire New Counsel Triggers Default Judgment

2008-1346 Shuffle Master v. AwadaD/NV 2:04-CV-0980 Defendant Yehia Awada appeals from Judge Brian Sandoval’s refusal to reconsider his order to enter default judgment against Awada and his company/co-defendant Gaming Entertainment.  Awada filed an earlier appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the default judgment order itself.  The CAFC appeal is based on a separate Notice of [...]

Holy Roller–Case On “Godly Powers” Dismissed

2008-1350 Roller v. James Randi EducationalD/MN 07-cv-01296 Plaintiff Christopher Roller appeals from Judge John Tunheim’s Order dismissing his infringement case against all defendants. Roller has a patent application on "Godly Powers" which was published as 20070035812.  Roller alleges that the defendants conspired to prevent him from filing the lawsuit, to kill him, and to infringe [...]

Crown’s Case Closed: Claims Can’t Cover Cans

2008-1340/2008-1284 Crown Pkg Tech. v. Rexam BeverageD/DE 05-cv-0608 Both parties appeal from parts of Mag. Judge Mary Pat Thynge’s orders finding Crown’s asserted patent claims invalid and not infringed by Rexam, and certain of Rexam’s asserted claims limited under § 287.  Delaware IP covered this case in several posts. The parties are competitors in the [...]

Sollami Seeks Review Of Stay Pending Reissue

2008-1345 Sollami Co. v. KennametalWD/PA 06-cv-62 Plaintiff Sollami appeals from Judge Arthur Schwab’s order staying the case pending completion of the reissue proceedings involving one of the patents-in-suit. Sollami sued Kennametal in January 2006 on 6,371,567; 6,585,326 and 6,585,327, generally directed to bit holders and blocks for road milling, mining and trenching equipment.  Just prior [...]

In Brief: 2008-1155 MIT v. Microsoft

2008-1155 MIT v. Microsoft ED/TX  5:01cv00344 Plaintiffs stipulated to non-infringement by Microsoft after Judge David Folsom construed the term "aesthetic correction circuitry" to be limited to hardware rather than hardware and software. Summary of Argument from the brief of plaintiff/appellant MIT.  Howrey LLP, Irvine, CA (William Rooklidge; Russell Hill; Andrew Dallman; Alyson Barker). The district [...]

Close Doesn’t Count: Catch-A-Call Doesn’t Infringe

2008-1338, 2008-1339 Kernius v. Int’l ElectronicsD/MD RDB 05-1927 Everyone appeals from Judge Richard Bennett’s summary judgment order finding non-infringement and from the jury’s subsequent verdict finding the 6,628,771 patent not invalid. Kernius alleged that defendants’ "Catch-A-Call" device infringed the ’771 patent, which is directed to a distinctive call waiting alert and management device and process.  [...]

Attorney Fees Awarded Against Dippin’ Dots

2008-13379/2008-1125 Dippin’ Dots v. MoseyND/TX 3:96-cv-1959 Dippin’ Dots appeals from Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr.’s orders awarding over $3.2 million in attorney fees to defendants under § 285.  Note that Judge Thrash is from the ND/GA. This action has a long history and began in 1996 when Dippin’ Dots  sued Mosey asserting infringement of 5,126,156 and [...]

CHF’s Medical Device Is Chased From The Market

2008-1335 Chase Medical v. CHF TechnologiesND/TX 3:04-cv-2570 Defendant CHF appeals from the final judgment entered by Judge Barbara Lynn on the jury’s verdict that CHF willfully infringed 2 Chase patents.  The court doubled the award under § 284, awarded attorneys’ fees, and entered a permanent injunction against sales of CHF’s Blue Egg product. Chase’s patents [...]

In Brief: 2008-1140 ExcelStor Tech. v. Papst Licensing

Our regular readers know that we provide notice and case summaries of newly filed patent litigation appeals.  PATracer, however, is aimed at following these cases through the CAFC from filing to opinion.  So, as part of our mission, a new feature will be a follow-up post providing the parties’ respective "Summary of the Arguments" from [...]