DETROIT - An expert may not testify regarding source code similarity between software programs in a breach of licensing agreement lawsuit, a Michigan federal judge ruled April 14, finding that the topic was already adjudicated at summary judgment (Ford Motor Co. and Ford Global Technologies LLC v. ThermoAnalytics, Inc., No. 14-13992, E.D. Mich.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50019).
DENVER - Claims that patent litigation surrounding a concrete batch technology qualifies as "exceptional" under 35 U.S. Code Section 285 were rejected April 13 by a Colorado federal judge (Port-A-Pour Inc. v. Peak Innovations, et al., No. 13-1511, D. Colo.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49669).
PHOENIX - An Arizona federal judge on April 7 granted a motion to dismiss a wage-and-hour class complaint filed by drivers working for a ride-sharing company and compel individual arbitration in light of arbitration provision contained in the drivers' service agreement (David Sena v. Uber Technologies Incorporated, et al., No. 15-2418, D. Ariz.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47141).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - An invention directed to methods of detecting genetic variations claims unpatentable subject matter, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 8 (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C., et al., Nos. 15-1202, -1203, Fed. Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6407).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a case that returned to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals following what it deemed "an unusual set of circumstances," a divided appellate panel on April 7 found that a Florida federal judge abused his discretion in denying patent plaintiff Rembrandt Vision Technologies LP a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (60)(b)(3) (Rembrandt Vision Technologies LP v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc., No. 15-1079, Fed. Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6332).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)'s Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in finding one claim of a scanning and copying patent "not unpatentable as anticipated," according to an April 5 ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (HP Inc. v. MPHJ Technology Investments LLC, No. 15-1427, Fed. Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6172).
ATLANTA - A Georgia federal judge on April 5 reduced the $10 million punitive damage award in the first Wright Medical Technology Inc. Conserve hip bellwether trial to $1.1 million but refused to grant a new trial over the jury's initial contradictory verdict and the dismissal of a recalcitrant juror (In Re: Wright Medical Technology Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2319, Robyn Christiansen v. Wright Medical Technology Incorporated, No. 13-297, N.D. Ga., Atlanta Div.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46409).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an April 1 amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, technology giant Intel Corp. urges the high court to grant a petition for certiorari by Google Inc. in a class complaint over Google's AdWords program brought under California's unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law (FAL), arguing that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in permitting certification of a class where "individualized differences in damages" were improperly ignored in favor of "the application of a statistical formula approximating the injury suffered by an average" class member (Google Inc. v. Pulaski & Middleman LLC, et al., No. 15-1101, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal magistrate on April 2 issued an order clarifying the scope of discovery that Uber Technologies Inc. may take on the employee of a competitor, stressing that only jurisdictional and standing issues may be addressed at this point in the lawsuit over a 2014 breach of Uber's database (Sasha Antman v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01175, N.D. Calif.).
PHILADELPHIA - A Pennsylvania federal judge on March 30 determined that a plaintiff failed to prove that the manufacturer of a table saw did not adequately warn consumers of the product's dangers or that the table saw used by the plaintiff was defective (Kenneth Wright v. Ryobi Technologies Inc., et al., No. 15-1100, E.D. Pa.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42003).
SHERMAN, Texas - Allegations that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. infringed various patents relating to image sensor technology will be amended to include Samsung's Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge products, but not the Galaxy Note 1, a Texas federal judge ruled March 30 (Imperium IP Holdings v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 14-371, E.D. Texas.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41762).
AUSTIN, Texas - A patent licensing company won transfer March 28 of a declaratory judgment action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, when a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas agreed that venue there was improper (Broadway National Bank v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC, No. 15-1056, W.D. Texas.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40051.).
ORLANDO, Fla. - A Florida federal magistrate judge on March 21 denied a motion by a plaintiff, supported by the defendant, to seal depositions being cited in a summary judgment motion, saying the defendant presented evidence that the deposition material is confidential (Ricardo Diaz-Granados, et al. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., No. 14-1953, M.D. Fla., Orlando Div.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36082).
SAN FRANCISCO - In a March 18 reply brief supporting a motion for protective order from discovery subpoenas served on one of its employees, Lyft Inc. argues that information sought by rival Uber Technologies Inc. is irrelevant to the present class action brought against Uber by one of its former drivers over a 2014 data breach (Sasha Antman v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01175, N.D. Calif.).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Manufacturing conglomerate EnPro Industries Inc., the ultimate parent of Chapter 11 debtor Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, will pay nearly $500 million to settle all asbestos claims against Garlock, EnPro and Garlock direct parent Coltec Industries Inc. in a global settlement announced March 17 that includes releases of all of Garlock's fraud and racketeering claims against several asbestos plaintiffs' law firms and attorneys.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A Connecticut federal judge on March 11 dismissed a consumer's class complaint alleging that manufacturers of ionization smoke detectors hid that their products didn't detect smoke from smoldering fires (Vincent Zito, et al. v. United Technologies Corporation, et al., No. 15-744, D. Conn.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31373).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. - In a brief filed March 10 in California federal court, the U.S. Department of Justice defends its motion to compel Apple Inc. to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation gain access to the iPhone belonging to one of the accused San Bernardino, Calif., shooters, arguing that any burden on the technology giant in terms of time and manpower would be minimal (In the matter of the search of an Apple iPhone seized during the execution of a search warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, No. 5:16-cm-00010, C.D. Calif.).
PHILADELPHIA - The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 10 held that a lower federal court properly found that an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured under a business/technology insurance policy's malicious prosecution clause, further affirming the lower court's conclusion that the insured's bad faith claim is not viable (Adam J. Hammond v. United States Liability Insurance Co., No. 15-1349, 3rd Cir.; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4483).
ALEXANDRIA, La. - Allegations that a defendant diluted the "Next" trademark as it is used in connection with height-adjustable work tables were rejected March 7 by a Louisiana federal judge (Baker Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Next Technologies Inc., No. 15-1630, M.D. La.; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29250).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - One week after a federal magistrate judge denied its motion to compel Apple Inc. to assist in obtaining access to an iPhone seized during a criminal investigation, the U.S. government on March 7 appealed that ruling in New York federal court, calling its request a "routine application" that has been made of Apple "dozens of times before" and with which the technology firm has always complied (In re Order Requiring Apple Inc. to Assist in the Execution of a Search Warrant Issued by This Court, No. 1:15-mc-01902, E.D. N.Y.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In its March 7 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied without comment a petition for certiorari by Apple Inc. in a lawsuit in which the technology giant was found guilty of violating the Sherman Act by conspiring with publishers to fix the prices of electronic books (e-books) (Apple Inc. v. United States of America, et al., No. 15-565, U.S. Sup.).