Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Omilia Natural Language Solutions, Ltd. (19-cv-11438).

Nuance, a designer of automated speech recognition (ASR) and transcription technologies, accuses Greek company Omilia of infringing eight patents related to ASR and conversational interactive voice response systems. Nuance states that Omilia was a licensee of the technology for use outside of the United States, but continued using the technology when the license terminated, subsequently expanding into the U.S. Nuance further alleges that Omilia was put on specific notice of the patents-in-suit by letter of October 8, 2018, but has refused to substantively respond or cease its activity.

Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC (16-cv-10914).

Judge Saylor denied Abiomed’s motion for a protective order prohibiting discovery of foreign sales of products whose components were exported from the United States and assembled abroad. Abiomed had sought to preclude this information because Maquet had not specifically pled 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) as a basis for infringement. Noting that the limits on discovery set forth in Rule 26 may encompass matters that could bear on any issue that “is or may be in the case,” Judge Saylor determined that discovery as to worldwide sales is potentially relevant to damages. He stated that the order concerns only discoverability, and that he was taking no position on whether a claim under 271(f) was properly pled or on whether the resulting discovery would ultimately be admissible at trial. Judge Saylor further denied Abiomed’s motion to compel discovery from the Getinge Group, a consortium of companies that includes Maquet and that is owned by Getinge AB, a Swedish company. Getinge AB had initially been named as a defendant in Abiomed’s declaratory judgment complaint, but had successfully moved to dismiss because it’s lack of ownership of the subject patents meant that it lacked standing to defend such claims. Abiomed then had sought information and documents related to patent transactions, assessments, valuations and licenses held by Getinge Group entities located outside of the United States. Judge Saylor determined that the documents were not in the possession, custody or control of Maquet, because the fact that Maquet is a subsidiary of and shares a legal services department with Getinge was insufficient to establish that Maquet is an alter ego of Getinge.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Paychex, Inc. (19-cv-11272), Akamai Technologies, Inc. (19-cv-11276) and athenahealth, Inc. (19-cv-11278).

Uniloc 2017, a non-practicing entity affiliated with the original Uniloc, sued Paychex, Akamai and athenahealth, accusing each of infringing a pair of patents relating to the management and distribution of application programs to target stations on a network. The patents originally belonged to IBM, and have an odd chain of title through the PTO’s assignment page – it appears that Uniloc assigned a security interest in the patents to Fortress Credit Co. in 2014 without having first obtained title from IBM – that assignment (to Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.) was executed in 2016. The patents each claim priority to a December 1998 filing, so both have expired.  The cases are all before Judge Stearns.

Nike, Inc. v. Puma North America, Inc. (18-cv-10876).

In 2018, Nike sued Puma on seven patents related to knitted uppers for athletic shoes, and subsequently added another three newly-issued patents. Puma sought inter partes review on five of the patents and moved to stay the case pending resolution of these IPR’s, asserting that it would file another two IPR requests as soon as the rules permitted (i.e., no sooner than nine months after issuance). Judge Sorokin denied Puma’s motion to stay, noting that Puma had failed to seek post-grant review despite being in a position to do so, and that the PTO had not yet actually instituted any of the requested IPR’s. His denial was expressly based “on the present record,” suggesting that he would consider a follow-on motion when the remaining requests are filed and the PTO has acted on them.

Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (18-cv-12639).

Judge Stearns denied Samsung’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, agreeing that the complaint meets the Twombly “plausibility” standard because it states the patents alleged to be infringed and the acts by which they are allegedly infringed. Rain Computing asserts that Samsung’s delivery of their apps to end user devices via an app store that requires registration and subscription to use, which are asserted to infringe Rain’s patent directed to methods and systems for delivering software to client terminals based on a subscription service. Judge Stearns held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even as explained by Twombly, “do not require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing that each element of an asserted claim is met.” This holding seems to be inconsistent with a pair of prior D. Mass. cases (Rampage v. Global Graphics, Judge Burroughs, and Sunrise Techs. V. Cimcon Lighting, Judge Gorton) that held that a patent plaintiff “must allege that defendant’s product practices all the elements of at least one of the claims of the subject patent.” It will be interesting to see whether Samsung will challenge this decision down the road.

KCG Technologies, LLC v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. et al. (19-cv-11101).

KCG is the assignee of U.S. Patent 9,671,955, directed to a virtual smart phone on a car-mounted display KCG claims that CarMax induces infringement of this patent through sales of used cars having CarPlay®, NissanConnect®, Android Auto, and Toyota Sync/EntunesTM technology, the cars including owner’s manuals with instruction on these technologies. Both direct and indirect infringement are asserted.

SiOnyx, LLC et al. v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. et al. (15-cv-13488).

The jury returned a verdict in this long-running saga over black silicon technology that SiOnyx disclosed to Hamamtsu under a nondisclosure agreement, finding that Hamamatsu breached the NDA and was unjustly enriched and awarding $1,377,109 in damages for these claims. They rejected Hamamatsu’s statute of limitations and equitable estoppel defenses. They further determined that SiOnyx employee Dr. Carey should be named as a co-inventor on the Hamamatsu patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Finally, they determined that Hamamatsu willfully infringed SiOnyx’s patent and that the patent is valid, but awarded no damages for the infringement.