LG Electronics, Inc. v. Adv. Micro Devices, Inc., Case IPR2015-00324 (PTAB Jul. 20, 2015) (Paper 17)

Summary: In evidentiary issues, parties must take care to distinguish between admissibility of evidence and sufficiency of evidence; a request to file supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) must be made within one month of the date of institution, but its grant is not automatic and a sufficient showing must be made to the Board as to why the supplemental evidence should be provided at that time.

SMD Partners Named to 2014 Texas Super Lawyers List by Thompson Reuters

HOUSTON, Sept. 20, 2014 -- Mike Sutton, Bob McAughan and Al Deaver, founding partners of Sutton McAughan Deaver PLLC, have been named to the exclusive 2014 Texas Super Lawyers list, a publication of Thompson Reuters. Mike and Bob have been recognized for their Intellectual Property Litigation practices, and Al for his practice in Intellectual Property. Both Mike and Bob have been named to the Texas Super Lawyers list every year since it debuted in 2003.

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Texas Super Lawyers list recognizes the state's top attorneys based on more than 70,000 peer nominations and extensive research by the publication. Selections are limited to the top 5 percent of all lawyers statewide.

In March, Sutton McAughan Deaver PLLC partner Jeff Andrews earned selection to the 2014 Texas Rising Stars listing of the top young attorneys in the state.

Two-Way Media Files Motion to Dismiss AT&T's Appeal in Forty Million Dollar Missed Deadline Case

On Monday, Two-Way Media filed a motion asking the Federal Circuit to dismiss AT&T's appeal of a district court's order refusing to extend AT&T's time to file a notice of appeal. Following a three-week jury trial and a final judgment of $40 million in favor of Two-Way Media, AT&T's attorneys admitted to receiving Notices of Electronic Filing ("NEFs") through the district court's electronic filing system, but failed to read the orders. Consequently, AT&T's attorneys did not realize that the district court had ruled on all of the post-trial motions, triggering AT&T's time to appeal. The district court denied AT&T's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under FRAP 4(a), holding that the failure of AT&T's attorneys to read the orders did not constitute excusable neglect.

TecSec, Inc. v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., Case No. 2012-1415 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2013)

In an opinion that potentially "undermines the utility of Rule 36" affirmances, a divided panel held that a patentee could reargue claim construction even though the Court had previously affirmed the district court's summary judgment of no infringement in a related case. See TecSec, Inc. v. Int'l Business Machines Corp., Case No. 2012-1415 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2013). The majority's opinion also addressed several claim construction issues pertinent to the computer arts.

Aristocrat Techs. Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 2010-1426 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2013)

Once again, the Federal Circuit has relied on its en banc decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. August 31, 2012) to vacate and remand a district court's summary judgment of no induced infringement in a case where there is no direct infringer. This time, the question of induced infringement arises in the context of patents directed towards gaming machines, such as slot machines, and claimed methods for awarding a progressive jackpot. See Aristocrat Techs. Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 2010-1426 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2013).

Sandisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., 2011-1346 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2012)

The Federal Circuit recently held that it had no jurisdiction to review a district court's claim construction ruling where the patentee withdrew its infringement claims after claim construction, without ever obtaining a final judgment of noninfringement as to those claims. See Sandisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., 2011-1346 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2012).