We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 493

Expert is not permitted to testify to alternate hypothetical negotiation dates where no hypothetical negotiation was conducted for those alternate dates

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 23 2015

After the parties submitted expert reports in this patent infringement action, Ford objected to Eagle Harbor's damage expert's expected testimony and

Patent misuse and patent exhaustion asserted as stand alone claims dismissed for failure to state a claim

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 18 2015

Continental Automotive GmbH and Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (collectively "Continental") filed a multi-claim lawsuit against iBiquity

The future of inducing infringement claims after Limelight v. Akamai

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 5 2014

In Limelight v. Akamai, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's precedent holding that inducing infringement claims did not

Court finds that Rule 26 disclosure and computation of damages insufficient where party failed to explain how it calculated damage number

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2014

Orbit Irrigation Products ("Orbit") filed a patent infringement action against Sunhills International ("Sunhills"). After the completion of certain

District court denies motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination where defendant was competitor of plaintiff and chose ex parte reexamination over inter partes reexamination

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 11 2015

Plaintiff Ecolab Inc. ("Ecolab") filed a patent infringement action alleging that Gurtler infringed Ecolab's patent for "SANITIZING LAUNDRY SOUR,"

District court agrees to stay action pending inter partes review ("IPR") but only if defendants agreed to be bound by estoppel provisions even if they withdraw from the IPR

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 9 2015

After the defendants moved to stay a patent infringement action pending an IPR, the district court analyzed the impact of a potential withdrawal of

Court denies motion to compel deposition testimony on overly broad 30(b)(6) topics and on "contention" topics

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 6 2014

In this patent infringement action brought by Trustees of Boston University ("BU"), BU alleged that defendants infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,686,738

Court excludes plaintiff's experts where experts failed to comply with Rule 26 disclosures

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 13 2014

In this patent infringement action, the defendants, Hangzhou Langhong Technology Co., Ltd. and Langhong Technology USA Inc., moved to exclude the

District court declines to stay proceeding pending inter partes review where plaintiff and defendant were direct competitors

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 4 2015

Card-Monroe Corp. ("CMC") manufactures tufting machines and equipment. CMC holds several patents that pertain to its machines and equipment. Tuftco

Open Text v. Box: district court holds that box can present damages in the form of a fully paid-up lump sum payment even though such an award might preclude a later injunction

  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 2 2015

As the Open Text v. Box patent case gets closer to trial, Open Text sought to preclude Box from asking the jury to award damages in the form of a