Joseph J. Farnan: No Fees for Successful Discovery Motion

Despite granting the relief sought in a discovery motion, district judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. has issued a decision declining to award the movant its fees and costs. In the underlying motion, WebXchange sought to compel 30(b)(6) testimony from FedEx about the company’s shipping practices. According to FedEx, the topic – an infringement contention –

Joseph J. Farnan: Demonstrating “Good Cause” to File an Untimely Amended Pleading

A recent decision by district judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. highlights the expedited schedule a party must pursue to successfully amend a pleading past a discovery deadline. Under FRCP 16(b)’s “good cause” standard, unlike the more lenient amendment standard in FRCP 15(a), an untimely amendment “hinges on [the] diligence of the movant.” According to the

Joseph J. Farnan: Paperless Event Ticketing Claims Construed

For those with clients in the entertainment industry, district judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. recently issued a notable decision construing claims related to paperless event ticketing. In particular, the Court construed the following claims: “Personalized Physical Material” “Paperless Ticket” “Authentication Data” “Exchanging” “Data Center” “Asks” “Bid” “Ask Quantity,” “Ask Price,” “Bid Quantity,” and “Bid Price”

Joseph J. Farnan: Overlapping Evidence Stalls Bid to Bifurcate Inequitable-Conduct Defense

A recent decision by district judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. serves to remind litigators that bifurcation is not always a sure bet. In the underlying litigation, the Court rejected an attempt to carve out an inequitable-conduct defense: “Defendants must meet a high burden to be successful [in proving the defense]. In light of this burden,

Joseph J. Farnan: Pre-Patent Commercial Negotiation Leads to On-Sale Bar

In a recent decision, district judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. helped define the commercial boundaries of the on-sale bar’s offer requirement. In the underlying litigation, the accused infringers grounded their invalidity argument on the patentee’s alleged offer of the subject technology well before seeking its patent. According to the patentee, its advances to a potential

Judge Farnan: Markman Opinion on a Medical Patent

Judge Farnan recently issued a claim construction opinion in ICU Medical, Inc. v. RyMed Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 07-468-JJR (D. Del. Dec. 3, 2009), an infringement case involving patents on intravenous medical connector valves used to connect fluid bags to an IV. The following terms were construed: “Compressed State” – “the state of the seal

Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.: Motion to Transfer DENIED Despite Similar Cases Pending in Illinois

Despite similar cases pending in the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Farnan declined to transfer the case out of Delaware. Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 09-495-JJF, Memo. Op. (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2009). The Court found that the co-pending cases in Illinois are distributed among five different judges and

5 Years Later, Issues Still Linger in the St. Clair v. Fuji Digital Camera Patent Case

Judge Farnan issued an opinion yesterday on a few lingering issues in the Fuji case. This is another St. Clair digital camera patent case; St. Clair received a $3 million dollar jury verdict in 2004 but its execution was stayed until recently due to a dispute over ownership of the patents. St. Clair Intellectual Property

D. Del. Special Master: No Prejudice, and Therefore No Sanction, for Untimely Produced Expert Discovery

A special master in the District of Delaware recently recommended against the imposition of sanctions for a party’s failure to timely produce expert-discovery materials. In the decision, issued by Special Master Vincent J. Poppiti, the special master considered and rejected a motion to exclude the evidence – certain product testing materials created by Chipworks –

Judge Joseph J. Farnan: Bifurcation denied

In Arendi Holding Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., C.A. No. 09-119-JJF (D. Del. Oct. 27, 2009) (mem.), Judge Farnan denied a motion to bifurcate a patent infringement action. In denying defendants’ (Microsoft and Dell) motion, the court stated that bifurcation w[ould] not promote the efficient adjudication of the parties’ dispute. In the Court’s view, the history