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 Court

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 agents

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 of

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 supported

Judge Hillman Grants In Part Motion in Limine

In a recent order, Judge Noel L. Hillman, sitting by designation, ruled on one of defendant Materia’s motions in limine in this long-running litigation. Materia moved to “preclude Evonik from referencing or offering any evidence relating to [a] covenant not to sue or claims already dismissed.” Evonik Degussa GMBH v. Materia, Inc., C.A. No. 09-636

Judge Hillman rules on motions in limine

In three recent Orders, Judge Noel L. Hillman, sitting by designation, ruled on defendant’s (“Materia”) motions in limine. Judge Hillman first denied Materia’s motion in limine regarding plaintiff’s (“Evonik”) expert, ruling that “Evonik’s expert, Dr. Cooper, may be permitted to testify, as may any expert or fact witness from Materia, on the nature and quantity of any inoperable

Judge Hillman affirms order granting and denying in part motion for sanctions for late document production

In a recent Opinion, Judge Noel L. Hillman, sitting by designation, affirmed the May 20, 2016 Order of Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, in which he sanctioned defendant for “belatedly producing one particular email and other documents.” Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia, Inc., C.A. No. 08-636-NLH-JS (D. Del. Dec. 14, 2016). Judge Schneider found that defendant “should have,

Judge Dyk decides post-trial motions

Following a five-day trial in May 2016 in ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 14-217-TBD (D. Del. Sept. 9, 2016), after which the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent, Judge Timothy B. Dyk, sitting by designation, considered (1) Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b);

Judge Hillman dismisses inequitable conduct counterclaims

Judge Noel L. Hillman of the United States District for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, recently granted Materia Inc.’s (“Materia”) motion to dismiss Evonik Degussa GmbH’s (“Evonik”) counterclaims for inequitable conduct. Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia, Inc., C.A. No. 09-636-NHL/JS (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2016). The Court had previously granted Evonik’s motion

Judge Jordan denies motion for fees

In St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., et al., C.A. No. 09-354-KAJ (D. Del. Nov. 23, 2015), Judge Kent A. Jordan denied Defendants’ motion for fees and costs under Section 285 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Court explained that “[w]hile it is true that [Plaintiff] did not present a strong case,