There have been a number of filings (majority under seal). I believe the summary judgments have been ruled on. Mitek filed a motion to reconsider and/or clarify Judge's ruling that USAA did not infringe on claims 1 and 11 of its '147 patent. Mitek also filed a motion to bifurcate. (Was this posted already, I forget). The Judge has ruled that (one of?) USAA's expert's opinion testimony is excluded from trial. I can't tell you what the Judge ruled, but as I suspected, I believe he has knocked some claims out and allowed others to stand. I hope the trial date doesn't get kicked. September I believe?
Lots of the documents are filed under seal. And it wasn't extensions. Mitek make a supplementary filing to its response to USAAs motion for sj.
This is why I don't post everything that comes down from the dockets. People that don't know what they are talking about making grossly inaccurate assumptions.
Mitk-long, I read the opinion, or rather skimmed it. it seemed to me that the ruling hurt USAA, which can't be right, because why would they file it? I just don't understand patent law and the opinion was waaaaay too technical for me to understand. So that's my answer. When was the trial set for again? September? If so, I would think the judge would rule on the motion for summary motion hopefully sometime in July.
Today USAA filed a motion to include new case law in its argument. It is the above case. I'm honestly not sure the relevance or how it affects either parties argument. The opinion came out four days ago, but USAA filed a motion to include this case as supportive of its argument. Other than this, nothing going on in lawsuit. The Judge did not allow USAA to file a 10 page reply (it is supposed to be 5 pages, so they had to file a corrected version limiting the page limit to 5)
“The standard for indefiniteness . . . requires ‘that a patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.’”
On June 20, 2014, Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo!, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Moore,* Schall, Reyna) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Yahoo! did not infringe U.S. Patents No. 6,594,691 and No. 7,269,636, which related to adding functionality, such as media or advertisements, to a web page; that certain claims of the ’691 patent were indefinite; that Augme and World Talk Radio, LLC infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,640,320, which related to retrieving digital content over a computer network using a unique identifier assigned to the content; and that claim 7 of the ’320 patent was not indefinite. The Federal Circuit stated:
[T]he district court determined that returning a blank or advertisement-containing ad code does not indicate “whether permission is granted or denied.” . . . There is no real dispute regarding how the Yahoo! systems function, but only over whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the Yahoo! functionality includes an indication about web page permission. . . . The Yahoo! systems return either an advertisement or blank code based on the suitability of a particular advertisement. The evidence of record demonstrates that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether these advertisements or blank codes provide an indication of web page permission in the context of the Augme patents and the district court’s construction. Thus, the “service response” limitation is not a basis upon which we can affirm summary judgment of noninfringement. . .
I'm an attorney and practice in federal ct. I have access to Pacer and can look up any case in the U.S. I don't care whether you "trust" me or not Steves. Don't. Don't care. These are public documents, btw, unless they are sealed.
Oc -- the document was 4 pages long. Exactly 4 pages. It is a web-based system and when I tried to copy and paste the document into a message here, it just highlighted in blue and wouldn't copy. I can't convert the doc (whatever format it is in, I don't even know). And yes, I could bug some people to help me try to figure it out, but I just don't feel like it. I already read it!
Steves buddy, trust me, you don't want to get me going on a conservative-bent slam ok? Enough with your political views. I am strongly liberal, you are probably strongly republican. Yet we still interested in sharing info on the same stock. Let's be grown ups and keep it at that, ok?
￼￼Nah ain't gonna happen guys. Tried. Can't. Replies to msj were filed Friday by both parties. So that is it for the msj briefing. In the Judge's hands now....The Judge could punt on the whole thing and say it is up to the jury to decide, or he could make rulings on the various claims brought by either party, or partial rulings (most likely I think).
Hey guys. Yesterday, the District Judge denied USAA's motion to exclude certain testimony of (one of?) Mitek's expert re: Mitek's claim of infringement agst USAA. This is good. Not like bring out the champagne good, but it is good. The ruling (a cpl of pages) is interesting. I'll try to figure out a way to copy and paste, wasn't easily able to, so gave up. I'll see if I can try again maybe tomorrow. If I am not mistaken, the replies to the responses to the msj are due today. Parties can file up until midnight. They weren't filed as of a few minutes ago, so maybe they are coming later today, or maybe Monday, not sure, but will let you know.
Just did a quick review of the docket (its been a long week). Looks like they are knee deep still in the discovery phase -- doing interrogatories, requests for production of documents and what not. Did notice that on 4/23 a mediation was ordered. Nothing further regarding that was mentioned.
H8ster-- perhaps you can enlighten me because I don't understand-- Why wouldn't the big short want to start thinning out its short interest now, as the stock has tanked over the past cpl of months, and while they have made a significant profit? Why would they wait/risk/watch their profits diminish in the (likely) event that the stock price will rise?
Today both sides followed their responses to the other's motion for sj. The replies to the responses are due in one week. That will wrap it up for the filings, then it is in the Judge's hands.
The stipulation that stevebuck is alleging was filed today was NOT filed today. The parties are filing responses to their various motions to strike portions of others' expert testimony/opinion. Nothing exciting/noteworthy. Recent suit by rothschild: I am not a patent attorney and cannot state that the suit is frivolous because I don't know anything about it. The fact that the lawyer (allegedly the lawyer) is commenting on the suit on a yahoo message board, THE yahoo message board of the entity he is suing -- COMPLETELY LUDICROUS.
But again, I do not comment or offer my opinion on things I don't know about, unlike some on this board…..
Mitek has filed leave to file its summary judgment motion under seal (as well as exhibits a-u) so doesn't look like I am going to be able to get a glimpse of either parties' motions. Disappointed because it is going to be a long wait for a ruling....