• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Alcatel Lucent V. Microsoft Corp

Direct or circumstantial evidence to prove direct patent infringement

In the present suit involving alleged infringement of digital music patents held by Alcatel-Lucent, the court ruled that of the two patents, Microsoft had not infringed one and had a license for the other. The court held a patentee might rely on either direct or circumstantial evidence to prove infringement. In order to prove direct infringement, a patentee must either point to specific instances of direct infringement or show that the accused device necessarily infringes the patent in suit. Lucent did not show specific instances of direct infringement. Instead Lucent relied on circumstantial evidence to attempt to show that Microsoft's Windows Media Player necessary infringes its patent.

• CIVIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Ed Schmidt Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Co., LLC

Court Requires Evidence of Intent to Deprive Opposing Party of Useful Information for Spoliation Claim

In this breach of contract suit, the plaintiff sought summary judgment on its spoliation claim. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant engaged in spoliation of electronic evidence by failing to issue a litigation hold, thereby neglecting to retain relevant evidence as well as the destruction of relevant hard drive data. The plaintiff argued this failure resulted in the destruction of potentially relevant data, in addition to destruction of evidence contained on computer hard drives. The court found no direct evidence that the defendant deleted data with an intent to avoid disclosure to the plaintiff. Determining a genuine dispute of material fact to exist regarding intent with each aspect of the plaintiff's spoliation claim, the court denied the plaintiff's motion.

United States v. Two Bank Accounts

Court Unwilling to be Lenient towards Pro Se Defendant on Discovery Matters

In this litigation seeking forfeiture of two specific bank accounts, the government filed a motion to compel seeking production of requested electronic information and production of specified computers used in transactions alleged in the complaint for imaging. Appearing pro se, the defendant, who asserted an interest in some of the potentially forfeited accounts, filed a motion to deny requests for production, claiming undue expense. Finding insufficient facts to establish undue burden or expense given the government's ability to travel to the relevant computers and willingness to copy the relevant documents at their own expense, the court granted the motion to compel.