Home

The District Court and Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware Announce COVID-19 Precautions

Chief Judges Leonard P. Stark and Christopher S. Sontchi have announced procedures for protecting the public and court employees from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The Chief Judges stated that the District Court and Bankruptcy Court will, if practicable and efficient, conduct conferences and hearings telephonically. Additionally, if practitioners believe they have come intoContinue reading “The District Court and Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware Announce COVID-19 Precautions”

Jennifer L. Hall Selected as U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware

The District of Delaware today announced the selection of Jennifer L. Hall to become a United States Magistrate Judge. Ms. Hall will fill the fourth Magistrate Judge seat in the District of Delaware, which was recently created by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Ms. Hall has been selected after a process that includedContinue reading “Jennifer L. Hall Selected as U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware”

Judge Stark on Privilege for Patent Agents

In a Memorandum Order unsealed on February 19, Chief Judge Stark addressed disputes over Plaintiff Onyx’s privilege log. Before making rulings on specific documents reviewed in camera, Judge Stark ruled generally as to the extent of the applicable privilege. Judge Stark first recognized that the Federal Circuit has recognized a privilege between non-attorney patent agentsContinue reading “Judge Stark on Privilege for Patent Agents”

Judge Burke Limits Scope of IPR Estoppel to Instituted Claims

This Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Burke addresses a factual scenario that may apply in several cases in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018). In November 2012, Plaintiff PDI filed infringement actions in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of one patent-in-suit. DefendantsContinue reading “Judge Burke Limits Scope of IPR Estoppel to Instituted Claims”

District of Delaware Announces Continued Operations During Government Shutdown

Today the District of Delaware issued a Public Notice and Order regarding its anticipated continued operations during the federal government shutdown. Per the Public Notice, funds are only available to maintain normal operations of the District Court through next Friday, January 25. As the Court has determined that all its judicial officers and staff areContinue reading “District of Delaware Announces Continued Operations During Government Shutdown”

Chief Judge Stark Grants Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in Hatch-Waxman Litigation

In September 2017, Chief Judge Stark denied a motion filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (MPI) to dismiss for lack of proper venue in light of TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1519 (2017). That dismissal was without prejudice because Judge Stark found that he could not determine whetherContinue reading “Chief Judge Stark Grants Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue in Hatch-Waxman Litigation”

District of Delaware Welcomes Judges Connolly and Noreika

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware today released the following announcement: District of Delaware Welcomes Judges Connolly and Noreika The United States District Court for the District of Delaware is pleased to welcome the Honorable Colm F. Connolly and the Honorable Maryellen Noreika as United States District Court Judges. Judge ConnollyContinue reading “District of Delaware Welcomes Judges Connolly and Noreika”

The New United States District Judges for the District of Delaware Are Confirmed

On August 1, 2018, the Senate confirmed Colm F. Connolly and Maryellen Noreika as the District of Delaware’s newest District Judges. Connolly will fill the seat vacated by the retirement of Judge Sue L. Robinson, and Noreika will fill the seat vacated by Senior Judge Gregory M. Sleet. These confirmations return the District of DelawareContinue reading “The New United States District Judges for the District of Delaware Are Confirmed”

Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Nominations for the District of Delaware

Today the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on the nominations of Colm F. Connolly and Maryellen Noreika to be United States District Judges for the District of Delaware, bringing the District of Delaware one step closer to returning to full strength. The nominations will next be voted on by theContinue reading “Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Nominations for the District of Delaware”

Judge Andrews Grants-in-Part Daubert Challenge to Damages Expert

Judge Andrews recently issued a memorandum order ruling on the Defendants’ motion to exclude testimony of Plaintiffs’ damages expert in MiiCs & Partners, Inc., et al. v. Funai Electric Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 14-804-RGA, Memo. Or. (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2017). The Defendants lodged several challenges to the Plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion. First, JudgeContinue reading “Judge Andrews Grants-in-Part Daubert Challenge to Damages Expert”

Judge Andrews grants motion for reconsideration on whether plaintiff’s Global Head of IP should have access to Defendant’s ANDA

On August 24, 2017, in Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civ. No. 17-435-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews ruled that it would be inappropriate to add plaintiff’s Global Head of IP as an in-house designee under the protective order, finding that such person was a competitive decision maker.  See previous Order here.  On December 11, 2017,Continue reading “Judge Andrews grants motion for reconsideration on whether plaintiff’s Global Head of IP should have access to Defendant’s ANDA”

Judge Bryson makes pre-trial rulings regarding Plaintiff’s damages expert and secondary considerations evidence

In Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc. d/b/a The D+M Group, et al., C.A. No. 14-1330-WCB (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2017) (Apportionment Order), Judge William C. Bryson denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to submit a second supplemental report from its damages expert because the supplemental report failed to conduct a proper apportionment analysis.  The CourtContinue reading “Judge Bryson makes pre-trial rulings regarding Plaintiff’s damages expert and secondary considerations evidence”

Judge Andrews denies motion to strike “excessive” briefing on Daubert issues

Judge Andrews recently issued an order denying defendant’s motion to strike 60 pages of briefing on three Daubert motions.  B. Braun Melsungen AG v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, No. 16-411-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 5, 2017).  Judge Andrews denied the motion because, even though he wished “Plaintiffs had exercised some judgment about which Daubert issues wereContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies motion to strike “excessive” briefing on Daubert issues”

Judge Andrews grants summary judgment of non-infringement after requesting supplemental claim construction briefing

In a recent memorandum order, Judge Richard G. Andrews granted a motion for summary judgment after requesting at oral argument supplemental briefing on the proper construction of one claim limitation.  MiiCs & Partners, Inc. v. Funai Electric Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 14-804-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2017).  Judge Andrews explained that the parties’ briefing madeContinue reading “Judge Andrews grants summary judgment of non-infringement after requesting supplemental claim construction briefing”

Judge Thynge Considers Rule 12 Motion for Infringement Case Based on 3G Standards

Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge recently issued a report and recommendation finding that a defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be granted. Judge Thynge first found that she need not take judicial notice of certain exhibits supplied by the defendant. The exhibits, copies of 3G cellular specifications, were relied on by the Plaintiff’s complaint, whichContinue reading “Judge Thynge Considers Rule 12 Motion for Infringement Case Based on 3G Standards”

Judge Andrews denies motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 without prejudice to renew at summary judgment stage

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc., No. 17-275-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2017).  Judge Andrews decided that, while it may be appropriate in some circumstances to decide such aContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 without prejudice to renew at summary judgment stage”

Judge Fallon resolves protective order disputes regarding source code

In Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A. No. 17-184-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Oct. 13, 2017), Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon issued a Memorandum Order resolving the parties’ disputes regarding the terms of a protective order relating to source code.  The Court first ruled that Defendant’s definition of source codeContinue reading “Judge Fallon resolves protective order disputes regarding source code”

Judge Thynge recommends denial of motion to dismiss due to lack of case or controversy

In the declaratory judgment action Tabletop Media, LLC v. AMI Entertainment Network, LLC, C.A. No. 16-1121-RGA-MPT (D. Del. Oct. 10, 2017), Chief Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, due to a lack of case or controversy, be denied.  The Court pointed to the followingContinue reading “Judge Thynge recommends denial of motion to dismiss due to lack of case or controversy”

Judge Burke Addresses Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission

Magistrate Judge Burke recently issued an interesting memorandum order addressing requests for admission and the parties’ disputed objections to those requests. Judge Burke first addressed several RFAs seeking “admissions regarding features of certain chemical structures from the prior art, namely whether those structures read on certain limitations found in the claims at issue.” Integra LifesciencesContinue reading “Judge Burke Addresses Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission”

The State of “Regular and Established Place of Business” in the District of Delaware

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC has created more questions about venue than it answered (although it obviously answered a very important one), and one significant new question is, what constitutes a “regular and established place of business” under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Chief Judge Stark recently attempted to answer that questionContinue reading “The State of “Regular and Established Place of Business” in the District of Delaware”

Magistrate Judge Burke denies motion to stay pending resolution of IPR

Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke recently denied a motion to stay pending the resolution of inter partes review of certain claims of one patent-in-suit.  Triplay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., C.A. No. 13-1703-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2017).  Judge Burke explained that the IPR, including any appeals, would likely be resolved before any significant events were were likelyContinue reading “Magistrate Judge Burke denies motion to stay pending resolution of IPR”

Judge Andrews denies request to order defendants to supplement rebuttal contentions due to deficiencies in plaintiff’s contentions

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s various discovery motions. Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., No. 16-453-RGA, No. 16-454-RGA, No. 16-455-RGA (Sept. 7, 2017). Regarding defendants’ interrogatory responses, Judge Andrews declined to order defendants to supplement specific interrogatories, in part due to plaintiff’s conclusory or vague theories.  ForContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies request to order defendants to supplement rebuttal contentions due to deficiencies in plaintiff’s contentions”

Judge Andrews grants summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently granted summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity relating to a patent claiming a system for locating and identifying portable devices using ultrasonic base stations.  Centrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 14-183-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2017).  The plaintiff’s infringement theory was based on the defendant’s “making and using”Continue reading “Judge Andrews grants summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity”

Judge Fallon Grants-in-Part, Denies-in-Part Cross Motions to Compel

In this litigation involving implantable power-injectable port products, Judge Fallon addressed several motions to compel, primarily brought by the Defendant. Judge Fallon first ruled that Plaintiff Bard need not produce “documentation of Bard’s Vortex power injection testing” because Bard had already produced all documents regarding testing of Vortex port products and the documents sought doContinue reading “Judge Fallon Grants-in-Part, Denies-in-Part Cross Motions to Compel”

Chief Judge Stark rules on summary judgment motions.

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently ruled on summary judgment motions in a series of cases filed by Intellectual Ventures.  Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1632-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2017) (and related cases).  Judge Stark granted a motion by T-Mobile seeking summary judgment that Intellectual Ventures’ patent rights wereContinue reading “Chief Judge Stark rules on summary judgment motions.”

Judge Burke Denies Expedited Discovery in Aid of Not-Yet-Filed Preliminary Injunction Motion

Plaintiff Ethicon filed a motion for limited expedited discovery, stating that it “intends to file a preliminary injunction motion against [defendant] Intuitive’s . . . products, but it first needs a limited set of materials to confirm infringement” by products which are not yet sold publicly, but which Ethicon believed were about to be commerciallyContinue reading “Judge Burke Denies Expedited Discovery in Aid of Not-Yet-Filed Preliminary Injunction Motion”

Judge Andrews grants motion to dismiss relating to re-issued claims

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently granted a motion to dismiss upon consideration of an an affirmative defense under 35 U.S.C. § 252 relating to claims re-issued following inter partes reexamination.  Waters Techs. Corp. v. Aurora SFC Sys. Inc., Civ. No. 11-708-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2017).  Judge Andrews explained that, as currently plead, “it is not plausibleContinue reading “Judge Andrews grants motion to dismiss relating to re-issued claims”

Judge Andrews denies competitive decisionmaker access under protective order

In Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civ. No. 17-435-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2017), Judge Richard G. Andrews ruled that it would be inappropriate to add a second in-house designee under the protective order to review an ANDA, as well as sensitive financial and economic data of the adverse party.  The would-be secondContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies competitive decisionmaker access under protective order”

Judge Andrews Resolves Daubert and Summary Judgment Motions in Trademark Case

Judge Andrews recently resolved pre-trial motions in this trademark infringement dispute between two cruise lines. In a memorandum opinion filled with nautical analogies and Gilligan’s Island references, Judge Andrews addressed numerous Daubert and summary judgment motions. In addressing Daubert challenges, Judge Andrews generally allowed much of the proffered testimony. His Honor excluded, however, certain portionsContinue reading “Judge Andrews Resolves Daubert and Summary Judgment Motions in Trademark Case”

Judge Kearney grants motion to dismiss declaratory judgment action due to failure to join patent owners

Judge Kearney, sitting by designation from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, recently considered declaratory judgment-defendant Nuseed Americas Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  BASF Plant Science LP v. Nuseed Americas Inc., No. 17-421 (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2017).  The motion presented the issue of the scope of authority given to agentsContinue reading “Judge Kearney grants motion to dismiss declaratory judgment action due to failure to join patent owners”

Judge Kearney denies motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motion for improper venue

In Prowire LLC v. Apple, Inc., C.A. No. 17-223-MAK (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017), Judge Mark A. Kearney denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on allegedly insufficient allegations of infringement as well as is motion to dismiss for improper venue, where Defendant argued that Plaintiff had not shown it has  “regular and established place ofContinue reading “Judge Kearney denies motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and motion for improper venue”

Judge Andrews grants summary judgment of non-infringement based on license agreements

In MiiCs & Partners America, Inc., et al. v. Toshiba Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 14-803-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2017), Judge Richard G. Andrews granted motions for partial summary judgment of non-infringement filed by certain Defendants as well as by intervenor Samsung.  The motions were based on various license agreements.  Having examined their terms,Continue reading “Judge Andrews grants summary judgment of non-infringement based on license agreements”

Judge Fallon denies plaintiff’s motion to compel cross-production of defendants’ licenses

Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon recently considered plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to cross-produce their Long Term Evolution (“LTE”) Licenses across the six related cases filed by plaintiff.  Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 15-542-SLR-SRF, et al. (D. Del. July 26, 2017).  The protective order in these cases permitted cross-production of defendants’Continue reading “Judge Fallon denies plaintiff’s motion to compel cross-production of defendants’ licenses”

Judge Hillman grants Motion for Permanent Injunction

Judge Hillman, sitting by designation, recently considered plaintiff Evonik Degussa GmbH’s motion for permanent injunction filed following a jury trial after which the jury found in favor of Evonik and awarded damages for past infringement.  Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia, Inc., No. 09-636-NLH-JS (Aug. 9, 2017).  Judge Hillman found that, on balance, the four eBay factors supportedContinue reading “Judge Hillman grants Motion for Permanent Injunction”

Chief Judge Stark decides motions in limine in advance of Princeton Digital trial

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently considered the parties’ motions in limine  in advance of the trial between Princeton Digital  Image Corporation and intervenor Adobe Systems Inc.  Princeton Digital Image Corproation v. Office Depot Inc., et al., No. 13-239-LPS (August 9, 2017).  For example, Judge Stark denied Adobe’s MIL to preclude a Princeton witness from testifyingContinue reading “Chief Judge Stark decides motions in limine in advance of Princeton Digital trial”

Judge Andrews Dismisses Claims of Pre-Suit Indirect and Willful Infringement

Judge Andrews recently granted in part a motion to dismiss infringement claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The Court first dismissed counts alleging induced, contributory, and willful infringement due to insufficient allegations of pre-suit knowledge. Judge Andrews explained, “Plaintiff’s allegations center on Defendants’ alleged knowledge of applications for different patents in the same family as theContinue reading “Judge Andrews Dismisses Claims of Pre-Suit Indirect and Willful Infringement”

Judge Thynge grants motion to correct inventorship and denies motion for attorneys’ fees

In Magnetar Technologies Corp., et al. v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al., C.A. No. 07-127-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2017), Chief Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge recommended the grant of Plaintiffs’ motion to correct inventorship, under Section 256, that was filed after the Court had ruled that the patents-in-suit were invalid, in partContinue reading “Judge Thynge grants motion to correct inventorship and denies motion for attorneys’ fees”

Judge Andrews denies request to renew motion to dismiss for lack of venue.

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied a defendant’s request to renew its venue-based motion to dismiss.  Invidior Inc. v. Mylan Tech., No. 15-1016 (RGA) (D. Del. July 28, 2017).  Quoting Davis v. Smith, 253 F.2d 286, 288 (3d Cir. 1958), the Court explained, “[a] litigant waives its right to contest venue when ‘the litigant performs some actContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies request to renew motion to dismiss for lack of venue.”

Judge Sleet grants § 101 motion relating to chat room matchmaking

Judge Gregory M. Sleet recently found that four patents relating to the matchmaking of participants in internet chat rooms claimed unpatentable subject matter under § 101.  Jedi Techs., Inc. v. Spark Networks, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 16-1055-GMS (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2017).  The Court found that the lead patent rested upon “the notion of humanContinue reading “Judge Sleet grants § 101 motion relating to chat room matchmaking”

Chief Judge Stark considers summary judgment and Daubert motions

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently considered the parties’ summary judgment and Daubert motions in Intel Corporation v. Future Link Systems, LLC, No. 14-377-LPS (July 31, 2017).  Regarding Future Link’s motions, Judge Stark granted summary judgment that RAND licensing requirements did not attach to the asserted claims of the relevant patents, and as to Intel’s equitable estoppelContinue reading “Chief Judge Stark considers summary judgment and Daubert motions”

Judge Stark Finds Waiver of Privilege

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently issued a memorandum order analyzing waiver of attorney client privilege and work product protection. At issue was the plaintiff patentee’s corporate representative, who had not answered certain questions during a deposition, and certain documents withheld from discovery and interrogatory responses. The defendant argued that the all of this discoveryContinue reading “Judge Stark Finds Waiver of Privilege”

Judge Jordan Denies Fees and Exceptional Case Application

Judge Jordan recently issued an opinion denying an exceptional case finding after having entered partial summary judgment against the plaintiff and excluding the plaintiff’s direct infringement damages theory. “Viewed in its totality,” Judge Jordan found, the plaintiff’s “conduct over the course of this case does not qualify as exceptional . . . [the plaintiff] succeededContinue reading “Judge Jordan Denies Fees and Exceptional Case Application”

Judge Andrews grants motion to file amended and supplemental complaint

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently granted Purdue Pharma L.P.’s motion to file an amended and supplemental complaint to add a patent from the same family already at issue in the case.  Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC, No. 16-87-RGA (D. Del. Jul. 27, 2017).  In doing so, Judge Andrews also permitted plaintiff to pleadContinue reading “Judge Andrews grants motion to file amended and supplemental complaint”

Chief Judge Stark grants Daubert motion

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently ruled on Daubert motions in Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., C.A. No. 13-723-LPS (D. Del. July 20, 2017).  Of note, the Court granted a Daubert motion to preclude an expert from testifying “that ‘no reasonable metallurgist’ would relay on certain data,” explaining that such testimony would “improperly usurp[] the Court’s gatekeeping function of determiningContinue reading “Chief Judge Stark grants Daubert motion”

Judge Robinson denies motion for attorneys’ fees

In John H. Stephenson v. Game Show Network, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12-614-SLR (D. Del. July 11, 2017), Judge Sue L. Robinson denied Defendants’ motion requesting an exceptional case finding and for attorneys’ fees. Defendants essentially argued the case was exceptional due to Plaintiff’s litigation conduct where Defendants’ “initial evaluation of the [patent-in-suit] asContinue reading “Judge Robinson denies motion for attorneys’ fees”

Judge Sleet grants motion to dismiss counterclaim for lack of personal jurisidiction

Nespresso USA file a declaratory judgment complaint against Ethical Coffee Company requesting judgment that Nespresso does not infringement ECC’s patent.  Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Ethical Coffee Company SA, No. 16-194-GMS (D. Del. July 13, 2017).  In response, ECC filed a counterclaim against Nespresso, as well as three additional defendants which are Switzerland corporations.  The Swiss Defendants moved to dismissContinue reading “Judge Sleet grants motion to dismiss counterclaim for lack of personal jurisidiction”

Judge Robinson Rejects Section 101 Challenge to Smart Power Meter Patent

Judge Robinson recently denied a motion to dismiss under Section 101, finding that the invention in question was not directed to an abstract idea. The claim in question, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,058,524, reads as follows: A method of measuring power consumption information on a power line comprising: measuring current fluctuations in theContinue reading “Judge Robinson Rejects Section 101 Challenge to Smart Power Meter Patent”

Judge Robinson Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Judge Robinson has issued an order denying a motion for preliminary injunction in a case under the Patent Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and Delaware state law. The case involves a dispute over “hair styling products in the newly-created ‘bond builder’ market category.” The Plaintiffs developed this product and “revenues quickly grew to theContinue reading “Judge Robinson Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction”

Judge Andrews decision on motions in limine in advance of bench trial

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered motions in limine filed in advance of the bench trial in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, No. 15-474-RGA (D. Del. Jun. 30, 2017).  Plaintiffs moved to exclude certain “points” of Defendant’s invalidity experts disclosed during deposition.  Judge Andrews ordered that  Plaintiffs could serve limited reports responding to thoseContinue reading “Judge Andrews decision on motions in limine in advance of bench trial”

Judge Stark considers motions for summary judgment on invalidity

In a series of related actions brought by Enzo Life Sciences, Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark denied all Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the patent-in-suit for lack of written description, but granted certain Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity of that patent for nonenablement. The patent-in-suit related to nucleic acid hybridizationContinue reading “Judge Stark considers motions for summary judgment on invalidity”

Judge Robinson stays remaining declaratory judgment claim pending appeal of the court’s summary judgment decisions

Judge Robinson recently considered the parties’ briefing in connection with submission of the final judgment, staying defendant’s declaratory judgment claim of non-infringement for the remaining claim at issue pending appeal.  Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc., No. 14-1483-SLR (D. Del. Jun. 30, 2017).  Judge Robinson previously denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to invalidityContinue reading “Judge Robinson stays remaining declaratory judgment claim pending appeal of the court’s summary judgment decisions”

Judge Andrews grants motion to dismiss infringement allegations

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint.  Sipco, LLC v. Streetline, Inc., No. 16-830-RGA (D. Del. Jun. 21, 2017).  Judge Andrews previously granted defendants’ first motion to dismiss finding that the complaint made “no attempt to connect anything in the patent claims to anything about any of theContinue reading “Judge Andrews grants motion to dismiss infringement allegations”

Judge Andrews grants motion for summary judgment of non-infringement

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.  Blackbird Tech, LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Lululemon Athletica, Inc., C.A. No. 15-930-RGA (D. Del. June 14, 2017).  At issue was patented sports bra technology, and whether the defendant’s product infringed where the straps of itsContinue reading “Judge Andrews grants motion for summary judgment of non-infringement”

Judge Burke Addresses Discovery Into Non-Accused Products

Magistrate Judge Burke recent issued a memorandum order addressing the scope of discovery into a defendant’s products that are not “specifically-accused products.” Judge Burke reached slightly different conclusions with respect to different sets of asserted patents. For one set of patents, Judge Burke agreed with the Defendant’s arguments that the Plaintiff’s infringement contentions do notContinue reading “Judge Burke Addresses Discovery Into Non-Accused Products”

Senior Judge Sleet Grants-in-Part Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter

Senior District Judge Sleet recently considered a motion to dismiss on Section 101 grounds that challenged a patent claiming “a computer implemented method of displaying search results.” As an initial matter, Judge Sleet found that it was appropriate to consider Section 101 arguments at the pleadings stage because the plaintiff “failed to identify any specificContinue reading “Senior Judge Sleet Grants-in-Part Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter”

Judge Burke applies issue preclusion based on arguments made to PTAB during inter partes review

Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke recently issued a Report and Recommendation on claim construction, construing terms and applying the doctrine of issue preclusion with regard to the proper function for one term in dispute.  Princeton Digital Image Corporation v. Konami Digital Entertainment, No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB (D. Del. June 16, 2017).  Defendants argued that issue preclusion applied becauseContinue reading “Judge Burke applies issue preclusion based on arguments made to PTAB during inter partes review”

Judge Robinson orders broad subject matter waiver based on opinion-of-counsel defense.

Judge Sue L. Robinson recently ordered defendants asserting an opinion-of-counsel defense to “product all documents and communications, whether listed on defendants’ privilege log or not, other than communications with trial counsel, that address” validity or infringement of the patent-in-suit.   Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Alcon Labs., Inc., Civ. No. 15-525-SLR/SRF (D. Del. June. 14, 2017).  TheContinue reading “Judge Robinson orders broad subject matter waiver based on opinion-of-counsel defense.”

Judge Andrews denies joint request to modify case schedule

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied the parties’ joint request to modify the case schedule, without prejudice to be renewed as directed in the Court’s order.  AstraZeneca LP v. Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, No. 15-1000-RGA (D. Del. June 9, 2017).  In particular, the Court noted that the bases for the parties’ request, the complexity of the caseContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies joint request to modify case schedule”

Judge Andrews denies motion to compel compliance with subpoena for failure to file in proper jurisdiction, orders briefing on sanctions

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered plaintiff’s motion to compel third party Broadcom to produce documents in response to a subpoena.  TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire Inc., No. 13-1835-RGA (D. Del. June 13, 2017).  Broadcom opposed the motion arguing that plaintiff was required to file the motion in the district where compliance was required, i.e.,Continue reading “Judge Andrews denies motion to compel compliance with subpoena for failure to file in proper jurisdiction, orders briefing on sanctions”

Judge Robinson grants in part motion for judgment as a matter of law increasing jury’s damages award

Judge Sue L. Robinson recently granted in part a motion for judgment as a matter of law on damages “because defendant did not present opinion testimony from an expert witness on damages, and ‘the amount of damages has not been put in dispute.’”  Ironworks Patents, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Civ. No. 10-258-SLR (D. Del. JuneContinue reading “Judge Robinson grants in part motion for judgment as a matter of law increasing jury’s damages award”

Judge Andrews denies motion for judgment on the pleadings premised on argument that certificates of correction were invalid

In B. Braun Melsungen AG, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al, C.A. No. 16-411-RGA (D. Del. June 9, 2017), Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking to invalidate three asserted patents based on a fourth asserted patent claimed to be 102(b) prior art.  The defendants’ motion wasContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies motion for judgment on the pleadings premised on argument that certificates of correction were invalid”

Judge Thynge recommends granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss counterclaims for, among other things, sham litigation and violation of the Sherman Act and state unfair practices statutes

Chief Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge recently issued a Report and Recommendation regarding plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims for sham litigation, violation of the Sherman Act, Robinson-Patman Act, and unfair practices under state law.  Varentec, Inc. v. Gridco, Inc., No. 16-217-RGA-MPT (D. Del. June 6, 2017).  Judge Thynge found that defendant failed to adequately plead theseContinue reading “Judge Thynge recommends granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss counterclaims for, among other things, sham litigation and violation of the Sherman Act and state unfair practices statutes”

District of Delaware Announces Procedures for Visiting Judges

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware today announced a new procedure for the assignment of cases to visiting judges in light of the District’s two District Judge vacancies. The Court’s announcement includes the following key points: 1. The Clerk of Court will immediately start reassigning a portion of Senior Judge Robinson’sContinue reading “District of Delaware Announces Procedures for Visiting Judges”

Judge Andrews Addresses 112(f) Claims in Claim Construction Ruling

Judge Andrews recently issued a claim construction decision in this case, which included construction of several means-plus-function limitations which were found to be indefinite as well as limitations which were found not to be means-plus-function limitations or were not indefinite despite being claimed in means-plus-function format. Judge Andrews found that a “JavaScript cookie” described inContinue reading “Judge Andrews Addresses 112(f) Claims in Claim Construction Ruling”

Judge Burke denies GlaxoSmithKline’s Daubert motion to exclude expert on pharmacy drug dispensing

Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke recently considered plaintiffs’ motion to exclude defendants’ expert’s testimony regarding “how the dispensing of prescription drugs occurs at pharmacy, and to discuss the factors that influence which product ultimately is dispensed for a particular prescription.”  GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al., v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, No. 14-877-LPS-CJB, at 3  (D. Del. May 2, 2017).  Continue reading “Judge Burke denies GlaxoSmithKline’s Daubert motion to exclude expert on pharmacy drug dispensing”

Judge Andrews on Timing of Amended Complaint Adding Willful Infringement Count

In this case, the scheduling order set a deadline to amend pleadings of December 15, 2015. The Supreme Court decided Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), on June 13, 2016. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a count of willful infringement on JanuaryContinue reading “Judge Andrews on Timing of Amended Complaint Adding Willful Infringement Count”

Judge Andrews denies Daubert motion to exclude invalidity expert testimony and summary judgment motion as to no invalidity

In AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation, C.A. No. 15-33-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2017), Judge Richard G. Andrews denied Plaintiff’s Daubert motion and motion for summary judgment that both implicated a particular piece of alleged prior art, the Pentium Pro (“P6”).  As to the Daubert motion, Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s expert’s anticipation opinion relatingContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies Daubert motion to exclude invalidity expert testimony and summary judgment motion as to no invalidity”

Judge Andrews denies several Daubert motions, grants one in part

In a recent Memorandum Order, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied four motions by plaintiff to exclude expert testimony, and granted one in part. AVM Technologies, LLC v Intel Corp., C.A. No. 15-33-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 29, 2017).  In support of two of the motions that Judge Andrews denied, plaintiff argued that the expert reports were “untimelyContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies several Daubert motions, grants one in part”

Judge Robinson denies request to produce documents identified on privilege log

Judge Robinson recently considered defendants’ request to compel plaintiff to produce documents identified on plaintiff’s privilege log.  Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Toshiba Corp., et al., No. 13-453-SLR.  Judge Robinson reviewed the documents in camera and denied the request finding that the documents “all involve communications to lawyers seeking legal advice.  Plaintiff’s business model doesContinue reading “Judge Robinson denies request to produce documents identified on privilege log”

Judge Andrews denies motion to strike expert testimony and motion for partial summary judgment

In a recent Memorandum Order, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied plaintiff’s motion to strike expert testimony on the question of utility and motion for partial summary judgment on defendant’s utility defense. AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 15-33-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2017). Plaintiff’s objection to the testimony of defendant’s expert in itsContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies motion to strike expert testimony and motion for partial summary judgment”

Judge Andrews Decides What Evidence Will Be Presented At Jury Trial Regarding Reasonable Royalty and Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents

Judge Andrews has issued several orders in this litigation between AVM Technologies and Intel, which is approaching trial. In one order, Judge Andrews addressed whether Intel’s reverse doctrine of equivalents theory should be decided by a jury or the Court. After considering authority submitted by the parties that supported both positions, Judge Andrews determined thatContinue reading “Judge Andrews Decides What Evidence Will Be Presented At Jury Trial Regarding Reasonable Royalty and Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents”

Judge Sleet grants motion to transfer case to the Central District of California

Judge Gregory M. Sleet recently transferred a case to the Central District of California, finding that all but two Jumara factors weighed in favor of transfer.  Blackbird Tech LLC v. TuffStuff Fitness, International, Inc., C.A. No. 16-733-GMS (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2017).  Judge Sleet explained that the plaintiff’s forum choice weighed in favor of maintaining the litigationContinue reading “Judge Sleet grants motion to transfer case to the Central District of California”

Judge Andrews denies attempt to assert different claims than those selected earlier during narrowing process.

In a recent order, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied a plaintiff’s attempt to introduce new asserted claims that the plaintiff did not include in its earlier preliminary list of asserted claims.  Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., C.A. No. 16-453-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2017).  The Court explained, “‘Preliminary’ refers to time.  It doesContinue reading “Judge Andrews denies attempt to assert different claims than those selected earlier during narrowing process.”

Judge Andrews decides motions in limine in advance of AVM Technologies v. Intel Corporation trial

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered the motions in limine included in the pretrial order filed in advance of trial.  AVM Technologies LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 15-33-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2017).  Judge Andrews granted AVM’s motion in limine to exclude references to decisions or orders from plaintiff’s prior lawsuits and reserved decision onContinue reading “Judge Andrews decides motions in limine in advance of AVM Technologies v. Intel Corporation trial”

Judge Andrews considers summary judgment motions regarding issue preclusion

In AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation, C.A. No. 15-33-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 17, 2017), Judge Richard G. Andrews granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to issue preclusion and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to no damages based on issue preclusion. A prior litigation between the same parties and before Judge AndrewsContinue reading “Judge Andrews considers summary judgment motions regarding issue preclusion”

Judge Andrews Partially Grants, Partially Denies Section 101 Motions

Judge Andrews recently granted a motion to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter directed to a patent that included the following representative claim: 1. A method of determining a recovery state in a data stream, comprising: receiving a compressed data stream; detecting a compression block boundary in the compressed data stream; detecting an archiveContinue reading “Judge Andrews Partially Grants, Partially Denies Section 101 Motions”

Judge Burke recommends grant-in-part of motion to dismiss/strike inequitable conduct claims

In a detailed Report and Recommendation issued in International Business Machines Corporation v. The Priceline Group Inc., et al., C.A. No. 15-137-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Apr. 10, 2017), Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendants’ inequitable conduct counterclaim and to strike their corresponding affirmative defense be granted-in-part. Defendants’ inequitable conduct allegationsContinue reading “Judge Burke recommends grant-in-part of motion to dismiss/strike inequitable conduct claims”

Judge Sleet to Take Senior Status as of May 1, 2017

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware announced today that the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet will become a Senior United States District Court Judge as of May 1, 2017, and intends to render substantial judicial service in that role going forward. The Court’s official announcement regarding Judge Sleet can be viewed HERE.

Judge Robinson denies motions for relief from judgment based on subsequent Section 101 jurisprudence

In Cloud Satchel LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 13-941-SLR & v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., C.A. No. 13-942-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 30. 2017), Senior Judge Sue L. Robinson had previously ruled on summary judgment that the patents-in-suit were invalid under Section 101. Plaintiff moved for relief from judgment, arguing that the Court’s “decisions had beenContinue reading “Judge Robinson denies motions for relief from judgment based on subsequent Section 101 jurisprudence”

Judge Andrews issues post-trial ANDA opinion in favor of Plaintiffs

In Impax Labs., Inc., et al. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-984-RGA, 14-999-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2017), Judge Richard G. Andrews issued a post-trial decision regarding Plaintiffs’ standing to bring suit and Defendants’ allegations of invalidity of Plaintiffs’ patents. As to standing, Defendants argued that the “exact ownership arrangement of theContinue reading “Judge Andrews issues post-trial ANDA opinion in favor of Plaintiffs”

Judge Sleet denies motion to stay pending inter partes review

Judge Gregory M. Sleet recently considered defendants’ motion to stay pending inter partes review of six of the eleven patents-in-suit.  Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al. v. ASUSTek Computer Inc., et al., Nos. 15-1125-GMS, 15-1126-GMS, 15-1127-GMS, 15-1128-GMS, 15-1130-GMS, 15-1131-GMS, 15-1170-GMS (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2017).  Judge Sleet denied the motion without prejudice to renew upon institution ofContinue reading “Judge Sleet denies motion to stay pending inter partes review”

Judge Burke Denies Transfer of Venue to Northern District of California

Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke recently denied two co-pending motions to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. Applying the Third Circuit’s Jumara factors in considering whether all relevant factors strongly favored transfer, Judge Burke found that transfer was not warranted. Tessera, Inc., et al. v. Broadcom Corp., C.A. No. 16-379-LPS-CJB, Memo. Op. atContinue reading “Judge Burke Denies Transfer of Venue to Northern District of California”

Judge Robinson grants motion for costs and leave to amend affirmative defenses

In a recent Memorandum Order, Judge Sue L. Robinson granted defendant’s motion for costs. Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA, Inc., C.A. No. 14-1483-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2017). Defendant had issued a subpoena to a third party after plaintiff indicated that it did not have documents related to a particular issue. Id. at 1. PlaintiffContinue reading “Judge Robinson grants motion for costs and leave to amend affirmative defenses”

Judge Andrews issues post-trial ruling invalidating patent for obviousness-type double patenting

Judge Andrews recently found the asserted claims of one asserted patent invalid for obvious-type double patenting after a four day trial on three asserted patents. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 14-1043-RGA, 14-1196-RGA, and 14-1289-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 3, 2017).  The Court found that the earlier-expiring post-URAA patent (the ‘990 patent)Continue reading “Judge Andrews issues post-trial ruling invalidating patent for obviousness-type double patenting”

Loading…

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.