This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement
Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Utto Inc. v. Metrotech Corporation

Published: Apr. 7, 2023 | Result Date: Dec. 19, 2022 | Filing Date: Mar. 25, 2022 |

Case number: 3:22-cv-01904-WHO Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

William H. Orrick III

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James W. Denison
(Law Office of James W. Denison)


Defendant

Jason T. Lao
(Haynes & Boone LLP)

Andrea Levenson
(Haynes & Boone LLP)


Facts

UTTO Inc. brought an action against Metrotech Corp.
Among other things, Metrotech Corp. develops and manufactures products for buried utility locating, fiber-optic cable locating, ferrous metal detection, and coating analysis.
UTTO is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,086,441 (the '441 Patent), which claims a method for locating "buried assets"--industry terminology for underground utility lines, pipes, and cables. When a technician searches for a buried asset, there may be multiple buried assets creating interference with the electromagnetic signals used by locators to determine where utility lines have been buried. According to UTTO, the '441 Patent provides a "more efficient, safe, and precise way of locating a particular buried asset," particularly when there are multiple assets buried in close proximity.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant infringed upon plaintiff's patent and interfered with its prospective economic advantage. Despite being specifically informed about the '441 Patent owned by plaintiff and how defendant's offering, called the "RTK-Pro Walk Back Feature," infringed the patent, defendant continued to market its product with the infringing feature, intentionally and willfully in violation of the patent laws of the United States. In promoting its RTK-Pro Walk Back Feature, defendant represented to known UTTO potential customers that it was the rightful inventor and originator of the software and had been attempting to dissuade potential UTTO customers from contracting with plaintiff.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.


#140519

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390