Month: August 2019

The question presented was whether Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other mandatory claim-processing rules are susceptible to equitable tolling. The Supreme Court adopted Hueston Hennigan’s argument that these rules are unalterable if properly raised, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s contrary ruling, and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. See Lambert v. Nutraceutical.

The Ninth Circuit issued its order on remand and denied Petition Troy Lambert’s appeal in full. The Ninth Circuit rejected all of Lambert’s arguments as to why his appeal was timely and reaffirmed the ruling Hueston Hennigan obtained at the Supreme Court “that Rule 23(f)’s time limit is purposefully unforgiving.”

This ruling also preserves Hueston Hennigan’s victory at the lower court, where it obtained decertification of the putative plaintiff class.

Nutraceutical is represented by John Hueston and associate Joseph Reiter.

The settlement resolves the Nation’s lawsuit detailing the Bank’s long campaign of predatory and unlawful practices and reflects a larger recovery than that obtained by similarly populous states.

The Hueston Hennigan team was led by John C. Hueston and Moez M. Kaba, and includes associate Lauren McGrory-Johnson.

Media Coverage

Navajo Nation Press Release

“Wells Fargo Pays Navajo Nation $6.5 Million In ‘Predatory’ Lawsuit Settlement,” Forbes, August 22, 2019.

“Navajo Nation Ends Appeal Of Wells Fargo Fake Accounts Suit,” Law360, August 20, 2019.

“Wells Fargo pays $6.5 million to Navajo Nation over ‘predatory’ practices,” Reuters, August 22, 2019.

In its Order, Judge Roy Payne found that Flywheel had “not sufficiently shown that a stay would simplify the issues within the case,” and “that a stay would result in significant prejudice for Peloton.” Order at 1. The Court agreed with Peloton that a stay would be particularly inappropriate here given that Flywheel’s At Home Bike, which allegedly incorporates the infringing technology, is a “direct competitor” to Peloton.

Importantly, the Court also rejected Flywheel’s argument that a stay would help simplify the issues, agreeing with Peloton that given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) – which precluded the PTAB from instituting IPRs for only a portion of the patent claims – “any institution decision occurring after SAS provides a weaker inference that the PTAB will determine that all challenged claims are unpatentable. Thus, institution decisions for the ’085, ’276, and ’855 [Peloton] Patents are less helpful in indicating that IPRs will result in a simplification of issues than they would have been before SAS.” The Court’s agreement with Peloton’s argument here is significant and highly relevant to not just the instant litigation, but other patent litigations pending throughout the U.S.

Counsel for Peloton, said, “We are pleased that the Court rejected Flywheel’s attempt to stay this important litigation, and look forward to proceeding expeditiously to trial.”

Jury selection is set to begin on June 15, 2020.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 9,174,085, 9,233,276, 9,861,855 and 10,322,315.

The case is Peloton Interactive Inc. v. Flywheel Sports Inc., case number 2:18-cv-00390, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.

Peloton is represented by Douglas J. Dixon, Christina Rayburn, Karen Younkins and Neil Anderson of Hueston Hennigan LLP.

ClearOne is a global provider of audio and visual communication products and services that creates innovative solutions in the installed audio conferencing market. One such solution—ClearOne’s revolutionary U.S. Patent No. 9,813,806—allows ClearOne to offer consumers exclusive access to a beamforming microphone array integrated into a ceiling tile as a single unit. ClearOne sought an injunction to prevent Shure from selling a competing microphone array in an infringing manner.

The Honorable Edmond E. Chang in the Northern District of Illinois granted ClearOne’s preliminary injunction motion, enjoining Shure from further infringement of ClearOne’s ‘806 patent. The order also precludes Shure from encouraging others to use its product in an infringing manner and applies to anyone who is in active concert or participation with Shure or its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys.

“This is a very significant win for our client ClearOne,” explained partner Douglas J. Dixon. “ClearOne is a small company that believes in fair and vigorous – but legal — competition. The judge’s thorough and detailed order validates ClearOne’s innovative solutions and ensures that it can compete on a level playing field with companies large and small.”

The Hueston Hennigan team is led by partner Douglas J. Dixon and of counsel Christina V. Rayburn, and a team of associates including Sourabh Mishra, Neil G. Anderson, Karen Younkins, and Michael K. Acquah.

To read the Law360 article, click here.