Archive for the ‘Litigation Issues’ Category

Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. – Cert. Denied

Monday, April 18th, 2016

Today the Supreme Court declined to hear Limelight’s petition for cert. on the question of whether an accused infringer may be held liable for direct infringement of a claim to a method where multiple parties perform the steps of the method.

On August 13, 2016, the S. Ct. remanded the en banc decision of the Fed. Cir. that set forth the law of divided infringement under s. 271(a), and found that Limelight directly infringed U.S. Pat. No. 6,108,703. The court held that an entity will be found responsible for others’ performance of method steps “(1) where that entity directs or controls others’ performance, [or] (2) where the actors form a joint enterprise.”  (more…)

Duties And Responsibilities Of A Corporate Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(B)(6) Witness

Friday, September 16th, 2011

The following is from the Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi newsletter BuLITS and written by Ron Schutz

Case: In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62032, MDL No. 1479, Master File No. 02-1390 (D.N.J. 6/9/2011).


Direct purchasers of the drug Neurontin brought an antitrust lawsuit claiming that the drug’s two manufacturers took part in a scheme to delay market entry of a generic version of the drug. Part of the alleged scheme included defendants’ illegal promotion of Neurontin for off-label uses. Both defendants denied the off-label promotion in their Answers to the plaintiffs’ Complaint, but defendant Pfizer had previously pled guilty to the illegal marketing in a separate criminal case.


Where Will the Burden Fall – Microsoft v. i4i Argued Before the Supreme Court

Monday, April 25th, 2011

Find below a recent article from Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. regarding Advanced Patent Trial Strategies (APaTS).

i4i APaTS Special

Judge Goes Medieval On Spoilating Defendants

Thursday, January 13th, 2011

This summary of Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe et al., provided by Ron Schutz of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi is a cautionary tale for patent prosecutors served with subpoenas (or about to be). If the appropriate steps are not taken to preserve documents or, even worse, if documents are destroyed,  the consequences can be severe.


The Gang That Couldn’t Spoliate Straight (Updated)

Topic: Available sanctions for repeated, egregious, willful spoliation.


Plaintiff  Victor Stanley brought claims for copyright infringement, patent violations, and unfair competition against defendant Creative Pipe and its owner, Mark Pappas.  Despite four specific court orders regarding preservation of electronically stored information (“ESI”), Victor Stanley demonstrated that Pappas had repeatedly and deliberately destroyed extensive quantities of ESI crucial to Victor Stanley’s case.  Exasperated and appalled, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm undertook an extensive review of the law of spoliation throughout the circuit courts in order to craft the most effective set of sanctions possible.  The Magistrate’s opinion acknowledges the “collective anxiety” that exists due to a lack of a uniform standard governing the duty to preserve and then attempts to synthesize existing case law in order to provide a cohesive analytical framework for future spoliation disputes.  After reviewing all available sanction options, Magistrate Grimm recommended that the district court enter a permanent injunction and default judgment as to Victor Stanley’s copyright claim. Magistrate Grimm also directly ordered an award of all costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by Victor Stanley in proving spoliation over the course of the litigation as a monetary sanction.  Notably, the acts of spoliation were deemed civil contempt, allowing the magistrate to order that Pappas be jailed for up to two years “unless and until” payment of the ordered sanctions occurs.