Judge Kent Jordan Denies “Meritless” Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

In this decision, Judge Jordan denied both parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment regarding inequitable conduct. The Court reasoned that because the materiality of the prior art references and the intent of the patentee are “hotly contested,” summary judgment was inappropriate on the present record. Judge Jordan went on in this opinion to make some generalContinue reading “Judge Kent Jordan Denies “Meritless” Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment”

Delaware Judge Refuses to Construe Disputed Terms of “Academic Interest”

Is there a limit to the number of claims a district court will construe? Yesterday, a Delaware District Judge issued a claim construction opinion addressing that question. The Court, faced with the prospect of interpreting ninety-nine claim terms, sua sponte limited the scope of its opinion: While a general interest in the terms of theContinue reading “Delaware Judge Refuses to Construe Disputed Terms of “Academic Interest””

Philips Awarded Fees and Costs on Second Try

, C.A. No. 02-123-KAJ (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2006) Judge Kent Jordan granted Philips Electronics’ request for $285,690.44 in costs and $2,448,750 in fees. After finding the case exceptional under § 285 in March 2005, the Court required Philips to submit documentation in support of its request for fees and costs. Philips’ first submission, however,Continue reading “Philips Awarded Fees and Costs on Second Try”

Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Decision on Anthracycline Glycoside Patent

In Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Sicor Inc. & Sicor Pharms., Inc, C.A. No. 04-833 (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2006) (Jordan, J.), the District Court construed the following terms in the context of a pharmaceutical patent for a ready to use form of anthracycline glycoside: “physiologically acceptable,” “anthracycline glycolside,” “sealed container,” and “storage stability.” JudgeContinue reading “Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Decision on Anthracycline Glycoside Patent”

Infringement Judgment Issues in Fuel-Ethanol Patent Dispute

Danish company Novozymes A/S scored a big victory recently in protecting its commercial enzymes used in the fuel-ethanol industry. Coming on the heels of an expedited bench trial, District Judge Kent A. Jordan issued a 64-page opinion finding that a competing product, manufactured by Genencor International, infringed a Novozymes patent granted in 2005. At issueContinue reading “Infringement Judgment Issues in Fuel-Ethanol Patent Dispute”