• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
208 results

Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Docket 3:21-cv-00812, California Southern District Court (Apr. 26, 2021)
Judge Todd W. Robinson, presiding, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt
Patent
DivisionSan Diego
FlagsAppealFC, CLOSED, ENE, PATENT, PROTO, SEALDC
Cause28:1338pt Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
10237660; 10659885; 10820117; 9439921
10659885
9439921
Orange Book Patent9439921
Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc.
Defendant Apple Inc.
Counter Claimant Apple Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. Taction Technology, Inc.

Docket IPR2022-00059, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Oct. 21, 2021)
Justin Arbes, Scott Howard, Scott Raevsky, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
10659885
Patent Owner Taction Technology, Inc.
Petitioner Apple Inc.
cite Cite Docket

No. 411 ORDER (1) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc's Motion to ...

Document Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812, No. 411 (S.D.Cal. Apr. 2, 2024)
On February 8, 2024, the Clerk of Court taxed costs in Defendant Apple Inc.’s favor in the amount of $69,072.06.
Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 411 Filed 04/02/24 PageID.19248 Page 2 of 4 Through the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks only to reduce the costs taxed against it by $17,756.40, representing the amount awarded for five expedited deposition transcripts, on the grounds that the cost of expediting the transcripts was not “necessarily obtained for use in the case” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2) and Civil Local Rule 54.1(b)(3).1 Plaintiff contends that “the expedited processing was optional, and the transcripts could have been obtained on a regular schedule instead.” (See Mot.
The Court agrees with those that have concluded that “the costs of expedited delivery are not recoverable generally.” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., No. C 09-01714 WHA LB, 2012 WL 6761576, at *6 (N.D. Cal.
Opp’n at 2), “nothing in the record shows that depositions could not have been scheduled earlier or that there is something special about timing that should allow expedited delivery costs to be included as ‘costs’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(d).” See Plantronics, 2012 WL 6761576, at *6.
Although the Court would be well within its rights to exclude the entirety of the $17,756.40 Plaintiff seeks in light of Defendant’s failure to adduce any evidence concerning what portion of those costs is allocable to the expedited service surcharge, there is no dispute that Apple would otherwise be entitled to recover its costs for “an original and one copy of any deposition.” See S.D.
cite Cite Document

No. 405 ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 389 )

Document Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812, No. 405 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 17, 2023)
Motion for Attorney FeesDenied
In determining whether to award fees, district courts may consider a nonexclusive list of factors, including “‘frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case) and the need in
To support its contention that this is an exceptional case warranting an award of attorney’s fees, Apple primarily relies on the fact that the Court granted its Motion for Summary Judgment of non-infringement.
Dec. 2, 2019) (finding case not exceptional where instead of “challeng[ing] Plaintiffs’ final infringement contentions,” “Defendants continued litigating the matter, including with highly substantive summary judgment motions on the merits of almost all issues in the case”).
Here, by contrast, Taction at most presented two theories of infringement, one of which was reasonable (although improperly disclosed) until the Court issued its revised claim constructions in the Summary Judgment Order.
Although the Court ultimately held that Taction’s proposed marking amendment failed as a matter of law, that does not mean that Taction’s claim for pre-suit damages was objectively baseless or frivolous.
cite Cite Document

No. 400 ORDER Granting Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal (ECF ...

Document Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812, No. 400 (S.D.Cal. Sep. 26, 2023)
Motion to FileGranted
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to File Portions of Its Opposition to Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Under Seal (“Mot.
to Seal,” ECF No. 397), in which Apple contends that “compelling reasons” exist to file under seal portions of Taction’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and portions of Exhibit 2 thereto, which consists of excerpts from Dr. James H. Oliver’s Corrected Expert Report.
Specifically, Taction seeks to file under seal those portions of its opposition that “cite[] to and discuss[] materials the parties previously sought to file under seal,” (see id. at 2; see also ECF No. 397-1 (“Cole Decl.”) ¶ 3), as well as those portions of Exhibit 2 that “contain Apple’s confidential technology and product development.” (See Mot.
Upon a close review of the limited proposed redactions, the Court concludes that Taction has demonstrated compelling reasons to file under seal those limited portions of
Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge
cite Cite Document

No. 392 ORDER granting Defendant Apple Inc.'s Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal (ECF Nos. 387 , 388 ...

Document Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812, No. 392 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 31, 2023)
Motion to FileGranted
Presently before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Apple’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Apple’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Exhibits 1–2 (“Mot.
to Seal,” ECF No. 387), in which Apple contends that “[c]ompelling reasons exist” to file under seal “Apple’s Memorandum and accompanying Exhibits 1–2[,] ... [which] ha[ve] been designated as Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only and contain[] Apple’s sensitive confidential business and technical information.” (See id. at 1.)
Specifically, Apple seeks to file under seal a single phrase repeated in Exhibit 1, which consists of excerpts from the April 20, 2023 deposition of James H. Oliver, Ph.D., (see ECF No. 388-1), and another single phrase appearing in Exhibit 2, which consists of excerpts from the Court’s July 27, 2023 hearing on Apple’s motion for summary judgment.
Upon a close review of the limited proposed redactions, the Court concludes that Apple has demonstrated compelling reasons to file under seal those limited portions of Exhibits 1 and 2 and its Memorandum that have been lodged under seal.
Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge
cite Cite Document

No. 378 ORDER (1) Granting Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, (2) ...

Document Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812, No. 378 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 11, 2023)
Motion for Summary JudgmentGranted
So, too, the frequency response graphs included in Taction’s infringement claim charts, show that the Taptic Engines are transducers that have a “highly damped output.” Taction anticipates that fact and expert discovery will provide additional corroborating information.
Case 3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB Document 378 Filed 08/11/23 PageID.18402 Page 15 of 42 It is ... my opinion that the phrase ‘highly damped output’ would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, particularly in view of the relevant intrinsic evidence, as an output that is generally uniform or flat over the normal operating frequency of the device in question, as for example shown in Figure 5C above.
“‘Contentions need not disclose specific evidence, whereas expert reports must include a complete statement of the expert’s opinions, the basis and reasons for them, and any data or other information considered when forming them.’” Wi-LAN, 2019 WL 5790999, at *2 (quoting Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
This argument is contrary to the patent local rules[,] which place the burden on the patentee to make explicit disclosures regarding all infringement theories.”); see also MLC Intellectual Prop., 2019 WL 1865921, at *7 (recognizing that the “onus” is not on the defendant to “grasp” scope of the patentee’s theory “by piercing together bits of different contentions” “and then figure out how the various contentions align (or not)” with expert report).
“‘[A] party may not avoid summary judgment simply by offering an opinion of an expert that states, in effect, that the critical claim limitation is found in the accused device.’” SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., 983 F.3d 1367, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
cite Cite Document

No. 362 ORDER Granting Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc.'s Unopposed Motions to File Portions of Its ...

Document Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 3:21-cv-00812, No. 362 (S.D.Cal. Jul. 31, 2023)
Motion to FileGranted
Presently before the Court is the Unopposed Motion to File Portions of Its Supplemental Claim Construction Brief Under Seal (“Mot.
to Seal,” ECF No. 354) filed by Plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc. (“Taction”),1 in which Taction contends that “[c]ompelling reasons exist to file” under seal three instances of a single, three-word phrase that “relates to Apple[’s] confidential information about the operation of the accused products that would harm Apple’s competitive standing if made publicly available.” (See id. at 2; also compare ECF No. 355 (proposed sealed document), with ECF No. 356
Because those documents are not at issue for the summary judgment hearing scheduled for July 27, 2023, the Court DEFERS RULING ON them at this time.
Upon a close review of the proposed redactions, the Court concludes that Taction has demonstrated compelling reasons to file under seal those limited portions of its Supplemental Claim Construction Brief that have been lodged under seal.
Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 13 14 15 >>