The USPTO has been issuing patents at an increased rate over the years. While it took over 121 years to issue the first one million patents, it only took about 3 years to issue the last one million patents. Further, about four million patents have issued so far in the 21st Century.
According to the Eastern District of Texas, no. In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, for the purpose of establishing venue, courts typically will decline to treat the place of business of one corporation as the place of the business of the other, even when the two are related, so long as a formal separation of entities is preserved.
A recent order from the Northern District of California provides some succinct guidance on the relevancy of discovery concerning litigation funding. In Space Data Corp. v. Google LLC, 5-16-cv-03260, the court denied Defendants Google and Alphabet’s motion to compel discovery as to potential litigation funding allegedly considered by Plaintiff Space Data.
Space Data sued Google and its patent company Alphabet over Google’s Project Loon – an Internet-beaming balloon initiative. Space Data alleged that Google unlawfully used confidential information and trade secrets disclosed during their partnership discussion in 2007 and claimed that Google infringed three of Space Data’s U.S. patents.
According to a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, no. In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, the court in CDX Diagnostic, Inc. v. U.S. Endoscopy Group, Inc. clarified that a storage unit does not qualify as a regular and established place of business. Specifically, retrieving materials from a storage unit does not qualify as actually engaging in business activity. While a storage unit is of course a physical place in the district, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to prove that the defendant engaged in any business in or from the storage unit.
A recent opinion from the District of New Jersey is a cautionary tale for patent practitioners regarding conduct during patent prosecution that can be framed as bad faith. This can become an expensive misstep during subsequent litigation. In Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al., 2-05-cv-00897, the court granted defendant Zimmer, Inc.’s (“Zimmer”) motion for over $13 million in attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 over plaintiff Howmedica Osteonics Corp.’s (“Howmedica”) argument that its actions did not support a finding of an exceptional case.
A recent order from the Northern District of California provides patent practitioners interesting guidance regarding conduct during licensing discussions—and may be a cautionary tale to potential licensors engaged in efficient infringement. In Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., 5-17-cv-04467, the court denied the defendant SonicWall’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) willfulness allegations. Finjan alleges both that SonicWall infringes ten of Finjan’s patents covering behavior-based and antimalware security, and also that SonicWall’s infringement was willful because it engaged in insincere licensing discussions in order to intentionally delay the infringement litigation.
In another interesting development in our ongoing coverage of the application of the TC Heartland patent venue standard by lower courts, the District Court for the Western District of Texas recently determined that when a parent company ratifies its subsidiary company’s place of business, it can be considered a “regular place of business” for purposes of establishing proper venue. In Board of Regents, The University of Texas System, and Tissugen, Inc.v. Medtronic PLC, Medtronic, Inc., and Tyrx, Inc., Cause No. A-17-CV-0942-LY (May 17, 2018 W.D. TX), it was undisputed that neither defendant was incorporated in the Western District of Texas. As such, the Court looked to whether either business maintained a regular and established business within the district, and concluded that Medtronic did.
A California jury recently awarded Apple $538.6 million in total damages for patent infringement by Samsung. This is the latest development in the patent battle between smartphone industry titans that began in 2011 and took another step towards completion. The verdict arrived after five days of deliberations and seven months after Judge Koh ordered a second trial to determine appropriate damages in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in December of 2016. The jury attributed $533.3 million for the infringement of Apple’s design patents and $5.3 million for infringement of Apple’s utility patents.
On May 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In re: ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 2018-113, held that Federal circuit law governs the burden of proof for venue challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to demonstrate proper venue upon a defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of venue. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit granted defendant ZTE USA’s petition for mandamus and vacated an order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denying ZTE USA’s motion to dismiss for lack of venue.
In our continuing coverage of the post-TC Heartland landscape, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that venue is proper in only one district per state in In re BigCommerce, Inc., 2018-122 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (slip op.). Last year, the Supreme Court held in TC Heartland that a company resides where it is incorporated. Among the many unresolved questions flowing from that decision involved the treatment of patent venue in states with multiple districts. Specifically, no appellate court had determined whether a domestic corporation incorporated in a multi-district state “resides” only in the single judicial district where it maintains a principal place of business or registered office, or whether venue could be proper in all judicial districts within that state.