Recent Trends in Class-Action Consumer Finance Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the...more
On September 7, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Arendi S.A.R.L v. LG Electronics, Inc., offering an important reminder to patent litigators of the necessity of following the...more
Patent Owner (Provisur Technologies) requested authorization to file a motion to strike portions of Petitioner’s (Weber, Inc.) Reply and certain evidence submitted therewith, which Petitioner opposed. Patent Owner argued...more
Rule 42.23(b) is clear, “A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply...more
Due to the relatively low number of post-grant reviews (“PGR”) filed to date, not many district courts have spoken on the scope of PGR estoppel. In GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00071 (E.D. Texas), Magistrate Judge...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
On February 28, 2019, GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) filed a Complaint against Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (the “’594 Patent”), directed to a method for controlling a computer to...more
A district court has denied a patent owner’s motion to strike wholesale a defendant’s affirmative defense of invalidity. The key issue in the motion to strike was the application of the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §...more
The Federal Court has granted in part Pharmascience’s motion to strike out portions of Teva’s statement of claim under subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (PMNOC Regulations) relating...more
No. Micro Processing Technology, Inc. sent a letter to Plasma-Therm alleging that Plasma-Therm was infringing MPT’s patent. Plasma-Therm filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it did not infringe....more
This post is our latest review of noteworthy case developments in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas for the month of June 2018. Two subjects stand out this month from the Eastern District: (1) venue and (2) expert...more
Following up on a previous post, Administrative Law Judge Bullock recently granted Respondents Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A.,...more
In a recent order, Administrative Law Judge Bullock granted Respondents Fujifilm Holdings Corporation, Fujifilm Corporation, Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation, and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. (collectively,...more
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...more
Andrews, J. Magistrate’s order granting defendant’s motion to strike untimely contentions is reversed. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is granted. Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s late infringement contentions is denied....more
Addressing whether a patent owner may file a surreply brief in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted the request, but limited the size of the surreply and the scope...more
Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation, et al., C.A. No 13-723 – LPS, September 22, 2015. Stark, C. J. Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s theory of infringement is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to strike newly disclosed...more
In This Issue: - Introduction - Selecting the Right Expert(s) ..The Testifying Expert ..Non-Testifying “Supporting” Experts - Fed. R. Civ. 26 Rules Governing Interactions Between Counsel and Experts ...more