District of Minnesota Orders Production of License Negotiation Documents and Sanctions
The District of Minnesota, in Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 14-3103 (Magistrate Judge Noel) (May 18, 2016), granted Defendant’s motion to compel documents related to Plaintiff’s withheld patent license. Defendant served discovery seeking Plaintiff’s license agreements related to the asserted patent. Plaintiff did not produce its Memorandum of Understanding or Waiver Agreement with Flipo which included Plaintiff’s agreement to release Flipo and its customer from infringement liability and Plaintiff’s waiver of its enforcement rights against Flipo. Subsequently, Defendant’s CEO had a conversation with Flipo’s CEO at a trade show in which Flipo’s CEO said that Flipo had taken a license to Plaintiff’s patent. After a specific request, Plaintiff produced the Memorandum of Understanding and the Waiver Agreement with Flipo, but refused to product all documents related to the those two agreements.
The Court concluded that the Memorandum of Understanding and the Waiver Agreement “were, for all intents and purposes, licenses.” The Court noted:
The Federal Circuit has expressly held that “a non-exclusive patent license is equivalent to a covenant not to sue.” TransCore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Spindelfabrik Suessen-Schurr Stahlecker & Grill GmbH v. Schubert & Salzer Maschinenfabrik Aktiengesellschaft, 829 F.2d 1075, 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(“[A] patent license agreement is in essence nothing more than a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee.”). Here, under the terms of the MOU and the Waiver Agreement, [Plaintiff] released
Flipo from any and all liability from selling certain flameless candles. See ECF No. 400, Exs. G and I. In other words, [Plaintiff] agreed that it would not sue Flipo for selling potentially infringing candles. The fact that [Plaintiff] did not characterize these agreements as “licenses” does not alter their purpose.
(Slip op. at 7).
The Court further concluded that Defendant should have produced the Memorandum of Understanding in discovery, as well as the negotiation documents that “constitute, discuss, refer, or relate to any grant of rights in or to the [asserted patent], including, without limitation, assignments, licenses, cross-licenses, joint development agreements, covenants, settlements, or releases in the [asserted patent].” (Slip op. at 7).
The Court awarded sanctions. The Court noted:
Nevertheless, it is clear that Luminara would never have produced the Flipo agreements if Defendants had not requested them after Yang’s chance encounter with Flipo’s CEO. Luminara must therefore reimburse Defendants for their costs and fees that were reasonably expended in having to investigate and request the Flipo agreements.
(Slip op. at 8).
Related posts:
- Judge Davis, EDTX, compels production of negotiation documents re license agreements
- District of Minnesota Orders Additional Expert Discovery and Sanctions Based on Information Not Produced During Discovery
- DDEL approves case-by-case approach to discovery of license negotiation documents
- NDCA in Implicit v. Juniper hears renewed MTC and orders production of license negotiations
Recent Posts
- Does Section 287(a) Apply to Agreements That Do Not Contain a Patent License?
- Webinar Replay | Patent Damages Theories
- California Law on Reverse Payment Settlements Goes into Effect
- DNJ finds award of lost profits does not preclude injunction
- DDE excludes damages approach due to lack of comparability
Categories
- 25% Rule
- 271(a)
- 271(f)
- 287(a)
- Accelerated Market Entry Theory
- Admissibility of license agreements
- Analytical Method
- and evidence
- Apportionment
- Apportionment – Degree of Use
- apportionment – claim scope
- apportionment – conventional features
- Apportionment – rate apportioning
- apportionment – real estate approach
- Apportionment – Use of Defendant’s Documents
- Asset or patent sale and reasonable royalties
- Assignment
- Bifurcation of damages
- Book of Wisdom
- Breach of Contract
- Comparable Agreements
- Comparable Licenses
- Constructive Notice
- Cost savings approach
- Court as gatekeeper
- Covenants Not to Sue
- Damages articles
- Daubert
- delay filing suit
- Discoverability of agreements and other damages-related documents
- Discoverability of license negotiation documents
- Do-overs for expert reports
- Enhanced Damages
- Entire market value rule
- Exclusion Order
- Expert witnesses and admissibility of testimony supporting damages
- Extraterritoriality
- Federal Circuit decisions
- Foreign Sales
- Foreign tax laws & damages
- FRAND
- Future Damages
- Hypothetical License
- Hypothetical Negotiation
- Inexorable flow doctrine of lost profits
- injunction
- ITC
- Joint infringement
- Judgment as a Matter of Law
- Jury verdict form
- Laches
- Large damages verdicts
- Legislative patent damages reform
- License Agreements
- Lost Profits
- Lost profits – market share
- Lost profits – two-supplier market
- Lost profits requires patentee product
- Lump sum awards and issues
- Market approach
- Market Share
- Marking
- Marking Requirement
- Misuse
- Motion for Reconsideration
- Nash Bargaining Solution
- Net profits computations
- New trial
- Non-infringing alternatives
- Notice
- NPE-specific issues
- Ongoing royalties
- Panduit
- Patent damages books and articles
- Patent damages speeches and seminars
- Patent marking
- patent valuation
- Permanent injunction
- Piggy-backing experts
- Post verdict royalties
- Post-Hypo Date Evidence
- Prejudgment interest
- Price Erosion
- Profitability of accused products and royalties
- RAND
- Real Estate Apportionment
- Reasonable royalties: capped
- Reasonable Royalty
- Reasonable royalty – license agreements
- Reasonable royalty – litigation risk multiplier
- Related Entities
- Royalty rate exceeds defendant's profit margin
- Royalty Rate Exceeds Rate to Which Parties Stipulated
- Rule 702
- Sanctions
- Settlement agreements
- Settlements
- Smallest Salable Patent Practicing Unit
- Spoliation
- Standards
- Standing
- Statutory Presumption of Damages
- Stay of damages awards pending appeal
- Subsidary
- Summary Judgment
- Summary judgment for failure of proof
- Supplemental Damages
- Surface Area Apportionment
- Surveys
- U.S. Government Sales and 28 USC 1498
- Uncategorized
- valuation