New England IP Blog

Covering intellectual property developments in New England, and other developments that impact New England companies.

Category Archives: Infringement/Willfulness

Subscribe to Infringement/Willfulness RSS Feed

Court Extinguishes Parties’ Motions to Strike in LED Patent Dispute

Although motions to strike are generally difficult to win, when successful they can significantly dim the opposing party’s prospects for victory on particular claims or defenses.  In one recent patent infringement action out of Massachusetts, each party moved to strike certain elements of the other side’s pleadings–but the Court quickly snuffed out the dueling motions.… Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Shot Down in Rifle Patent Lawsuit

In a recent patent case concerning hunting rifles, Judge McCafferty in the District of New Hampshire granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to literal infringement of a patent on a rifle handguard, but denied the motion with respect to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The case arose when the plaintiff, Davies Innovations, Inc., the owner of a U.S. patent … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Limits Foreign Reach of the U.S. Patent Act

The supply from the United States of a single component of an invention, for assembly of the invention abroad, is not patent infringement under Section 271(f)(1) of the Patent Act. This is according to a unanimous ruling yesterday by the United States Supreme Court. The court found significant limitations on the reach of Section 271(f)(1), a law … Continue Reading

Heartburn for Defense After Jury Verdict in Pepcid® Dispute

The recent jury verdict in a dispute over a generic version of the heartburn medication Pepcid® Complete® would be enough for anyone to reach for a few tablets of the accused product. After an eight day trial presided over by Judge Zobel, a Massachusetts jury last week returned a verdict for Plaintiffs Brigham and Women’s … Continue Reading

Sunrise’s Infringement Complaint Gets the Green Light

In a recent opinion out of the District of Massachusetts, the court ordered that a patent infringement dispute between two Massachusetts-based competitors in the lighting systems industry would be allowed to proceed. This was despite a challenge to the sufficiency of the pleadings in the patent owner’s complaint. The patent owner, Sunrise Technologies, asserted a patent directed to the monitoring … Continue Reading

Accused Infringer Secures Patent Invalidity in Eyeglass Screw Case

Declaratory judgment actions can be a useful way for entities threatened with patent infringement to go on the offensive.  In one such matter in the District of Massachusetts, a declaratory judgment plaintiff turned the tables on a patentee by invalidating two patents relating to eyeglass screw technology at the summary judgment stage.… Continue Reading

Edible Arrangements’ Trademark Case Bears Fruit

In a recent decision, Judge Vanessa L. Bryant shed some light on a significant new issue: trademark infringement in the world of internet keyword advertising. In a case with important implications for online marketing strategies, Judge Bryant denied Provide Commerce’s request for partial summary judgment against trademark owner Edible Arrangements, which had filed a suit … Continue Reading

Halo Shines Bright in D. Mass.

A recent order from the District of Massachusetts sheds light on how the Supreme Court’s June 2016 decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics is being interpreted by the district courts. The Memorandum and Order by Chief Judge Patti B. Saris denied a request for enhanced damages by plaintiff, Trustees of Boston University (“BU”). BU moved for enhanced damages after … Continue Reading

Hyper-Divergence: Halo and the Preliminary Injunction Requirement for Enhanced Damages

A recent report and recommendation issued in the District of Massachusetts is one of the first cases to interpret – and arguably, to extend – the Supreme Court’s recent decision on willful infringement, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. In Simplivity Corporation v. Springpath, Inc., plaintiff Simplivity alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,799, … Continue Reading

LED Dispute Blazes Through Summary Judgment

A recent decision from Judge Stearns sheds new light on a dispute between Lexington Luminance (“Lexington”) and Google over LED technology. The dispute began in November, 2012, when Lexington accused Google of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,936,851 (the “’851 Patent”), entitled “Semiconductor Light-Emitting Device and Method for Manufacturing Same.” In particular, Lexington accused the LEDs … Continue Reading

Sensor Maker Cannot Shake Infringement Suit on Summary Judgment

A New Hampshire District Court recently denied defendant sensor makers’ attempt to tilt the case in their favor by denying summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement. SignalQuest asserted three patents relating to tilt and vibration sensors against the defendants. During the case, the U.S. Patent Office instituted ex parte reexaminations for each of the patents, … Continue Reading

Plaintiff Secures Sweeping Jury Verdict in Hotly-Contested Patent Fight

In a long-running patent fight involving two medical device manufacturers, a Massachusetts jury determined last week that the defendant Kaz had infringed two of plaintiff Exergen’s patents relating to temporal thermometers, and that the patents are not invalid. The jury also awarded Exergen nearly $15 million in damages.… Continue Reading

Plaintiff Avoids Headache of Having Its Thermometer Patent Invalidated at Summary Judgment

In a recent District of Massachusetts case, a defendant attempted to use the crucible of summary judgment to invalidate the plaintiff’s body temperature detection patents. But, as shown in the Court’s ruling, sometimes that strategy does not produce the desired results.… Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Ruling Not a Pretty Picture for Massachusetts Copyright Plaintiff

A recent decision from the District of Massachusetts demonstrates the difficulties that can arise when attempting to protect copyrighted works displayed on the internet.  The July 29, 2015 order issued by the Honorable Patti B. Saris, granted defendants Orgill, Inc. (“Orgill”) and Farm & City Supply, LLC (“FSC”) a split ruling on their summary judgment … Continue Reading

Conflicting Expert Opinions Prevent Summary Judgment

A recent summary judgment opinion by Judge Patti B. Saris highlights the importance of expert testimony in substantiating factual disputes and withstanding summary judgment. In denying both parties’ motions for summary judgment on infringement, Judge Saris relied heavily on the opposing opinions of the parties’ experts. Here, Boston University sued Everlight Electronics, a manufacturer of light-emitting … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Further Clarifies Indirect Infringement Standards

The Supreme Court in the last several years has taken an activist approach to the area of patent law, granting certiorari in many more cases than in prior years and often reversing the Federal Circuit. If there was one theme running through those decisions, it is that the Court is trying to bring more certainty and … Continue Reading

Foreign Corporations and the Long Arm of the Law

Can foreign corporations avoid the long arm of the law? A recent order in a Massachusetts declaratory judgment patent case suggests that the answer may be, “sometimes.” The case began when Venmill Industries, Inc. filed a complaint in Massachusetts federal court seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,342,905, titled, “Optical Disk Restoration … Continue Reading

Google Remains on the Hook After Summary Judgment Denied

Judge Rya W. Zobel’s recent decision denying a set of Google’s summary judgment motions has cleared the way for trial. Skyhook initially sued Google for infringement of thirteen patents. Currently, eight patents remain at issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,433,694 (the “’694 patent”); 7,474,897 (the “’897 patent”); 7,856,234 (the “’234 patent”); 8,031,657 (the “’657 patent”); 8,054,219 … Continue Reading

Protegrity’s “Bare Bones” Allegations Result in Dismissal, Again

In yet another case in the District of Connecticut, Protegrity has seen its claims for indirect and willful infringement dismissed because, according to the court, its complaint did not plead sufficient facts. District Judge Robert Chatigny granted AJB Software’s motion to dismiss, agreeing with AJB that the “bare bones” allegations in Protegrity’s complaint were insufficient … Continue Reading

In Thermometer Case, Reliance on Opinion of Counsel May Waive Privilege – But Only to a Certain Degree

How do you defend yourself against charges of willful patent infringement? Companies finding themselves facing such an allegation often use the defense that they relied on a pre-lawsuit opinion from a lawyer that the company does not infringe valid patents. Such an opinion, if it exists, can be a strong piece of defensive evidence, because … Continue Reading

A Trademark Licensor Is Not Its Licensee’s Keeper

It appears Oban’s case against Nautilus now has no pulse.  In a recent opinion in Oban US, LLC v. Nautilus, Inc. and Sports Beat, Inc., Judge Arterton granted Nautilus’ motion to dismiss Oban’s claims against Nautilus for contributory trademark infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and “unspecified” state … Continue Reading

Veracode Wins Patent Infringement Trial Against Appthority

Following a nine day trial, last Friday a Boston jury delivered a patent infringement verdict in favor of Veracode, Inc. and Rovi Solutions Corporation.  In the case before Judge Woodlock in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Veracode and Rovi accused Appthority, Inc. of infringing two patents.  The two asserted patents, U.S. … Continue Reading

No Pay Day for Protegrity’s Indirect Infringement Claims in Paymetric Case

When it comes to pleading indirect and willful infringement, complaints short on facts can be short-lived.  In Protegrity Corporation v. Paymetric, Inc., District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant granted Paymetric’s motion to dismiss Protegrity’s claims for contributory infringement, inducement of infringement, and willful infringement.  Paymetric did not challenge the sufficiency of Protegrity’s pleading for direct infringement. … Continue Reading

LevelUp Credited with Non-Infringement

When LevelUp was sued for patent infringement by an individual plaintiff, Jack Barron (“Barron”), it scored an aggressive win in part because of a finding that its mobile app was akin to an electronic credit card.  According to the court’s order, LevelUp is the creator of an app, “that allows users to pay for goods … Continue Reading
LexBlog