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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 684

District Court Stays Case Pending Inter Partes Review After Non-Petitioning Defendant Agrees to be Bound by Estoppel Provisions
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • February 14 2017

In a previous order, the district court granted a motion to stay pending Inter Partes Review ("IPR") but deferred ruling on the Motion to Stay with


District Court Excludes Damage Expert for Failure to Apportion But Gives Expert One More Opportunity to Supplement Report
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • February 7 2017

In this patent infringement action, Plaid sought to exclude the entirety of the plaintiff's damage expert's, Robinson's, reasonable royalty analysis


Divorces, community property and patents the problem of the ex-spouse
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • December 2 2013

Many universities have standard patent assignment agreements that assign inventions of a university employee to the university. But what if the


District Court Orders Production of Attorney-Client Communications Between Opinion Counsel and Trial Counsel Based on Advice of Counsel Defense
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • January 17 2017

Plaintiff Krausz Industries Ltd. ("Krausz") filed a motion for an order compelling Defendants Smith-Blair, Inc. and Sensus USA, Inc. (collectively


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 Accounting and Ongoing Royalty Where Jury Instructions Told Jury to Award Damages That Would Put Patent Holder in Same Financial Position Had Infringement Not Occurred
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • December 31 2015

Prism brought suit against Sprint alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,127,345 and 8,387,155 (the "Asserted Patents"). After the jury


District Court Denies Motion to Compel Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • January 31 2017

In this patent infringement action, Teva inadvertently produced documents to Sunovion. Teva subsequently attempted to claw back the documents under


Motion to strike "errata sheets" to deposition testimony granted where plaintiff's expert witnesses changed answers from "no" to "yes"
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • November 26 2014

In this patent infringement action, the defendant filed a motion to strike the "errata sheets" to deposition testimony of two of plaintiffs' expert


In-house counsel ordered to sit for additional deposition after emails improperly withheld on basis of privilege
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • August 13 2015

Sprint Communications Company, L.P., filed a patent-infringement action against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast IP Phone, LLC, and Comcast


Defendants' Motion Seeking to Depose Opposing Counsel Denied Where Defendants Could Not Show That Information Was Unavailable from Another Source
  • Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
  • USA
  • February 4 2016

After the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for patent infringement, the defendants contended that they uncovered during discovery a series