The Battle Rages On…

In the ongoing battle between Cordis Corporation and Boston Scientific Corporation over stent technology, the District of Delaware recently upheld two jury verdicts while denying Cordis’ motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al., C.A. Nos. 03-027-SLR, 03-283-SLR, Memorandum Order (D.Continue reading “The Battle Rages On…”

Delaware Judge Issues First Post-Bell Atlantic Pleading Decision in Patent Context

For the first time in the patent context, the District of Delaware has addressed the dismissal framework recently established in the Supreme Court’s Bell Atlantic decision. In a memorandum order issued yesterday, district judge Sue L. Robinson emphasized that although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations,” the stated entitlement to relief requires “moreContinue reading “Delaware Judge Issues First Post-Bell Atlantic Pleading Decision in Patent Context”

Delaware Court Finds No Retroactive Effect for KSR Decision

Most commentators agree that the Supreme Court’s recent KSR decision effectively broadened the federal courts’ inquiry in determining obviousness. But how will this new paradigm affect pending litigation? Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson answered that question in part in a succinct memorandum order on Thursday. At trial, defendants asserted an invalidity defense based on obviousness.Continue reading “Delaware Court Finds No Retroactive Effect for KSR Decision”

Chief Judge Robinson Renders Two Patents Unenforceable Based On Inequitable Conduct

Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., C.A. No. 03-1158-SLR (D. Del. June 13, 2007). In December 2005, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Praxair, finding two of its patents valid and infringed. A bench trial regarding inequitable conduct followed the jury trial. This opinion addresses the inequitable conduct issue. Praxair asserted three references thatContinue reading “Chief Judge Robinson Renders Two Patents Unenforceable Based On Inequitable Conduct”

Can Tort of Infringement Learn from Its Common Law Predecessors?

In an opinion filed Tuesday, Chief Judge Robinson addressed whether a plaintiff may maintain an action for conversion of property (here, a virus strain) that plaintiff possessed only in copy form. Answering no, the Court found that “conversion cannot lie in the absence of the physical possession of the actual good or chattel owned byContinue reading “Can Tort of Infringement Learn from Its Common Law Predecessors?”

Injunctions Pending Appeal – Not Without Solid Evidence of Harm

IMX filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous denial of a permanent injunction pending appeal. As grounds for reconsideration, IMX cited an attempted post-verdict workaround by Lendingtree and design work that preceded the workaround as “ongoing, infringing conduct.” Op. at 2. The Court saw the use of this new evidence as grounds forContinue reading “Injunctions Pending Appeal – Not Without Solid Evidence of Harm”

Another Post-E-bay Injunction Decision

In another post-eBay permanent injunction opinion, the Court denied to enter a permanent injunction where the plaintiffs failed to set forth specific reasons why damages in the form of monetary compensation would not suffice and where they did not provide the Court with any details as to what injury it would incur as a resultContinue reading “Another Post-E-bay Injunction Decision”

Texas Hold ‘Em: Incorporation and plaintiffs’ choice of forum beats pending, related cases and witness convenience

The Court denied defendant’s motion to transfer venue to E.D. Texas and to consolidate. In 2005, Epicrealm filed three infringement actions in Texas against numerous defendants involving the same patents implicated in this Delaware action. Epicrealm, a patent holding company based in Richardson, Texas but incorporated in Delaware, argued that transferring these two Delaware actionsContinue reading “Texas Hold ‘Em: Incorporation and plaintiffs’ choice of forum beats pending, related cases and witness convenience”

Clawback Motion Denied in Part, Granted in Part

Judge Robinson issued an order today denying a motion for the return or destruction of a privileged document where the document was “used” in a deposition and the protective order provided that the producing party has 3 weeks from the date of disclosure at the deposition to provide notice of inadvertant production. , C.A. No.Continue reading “Clawback Motion Denied in Part, Granted in Part”

No Spin Zone – “Spinners” Case Tossed on Summary Judgment

Admittedly, this case is pretty much a run of the mill contract dispute. Rimmax ordered some �spinners� from defendant and appears to have paid for part of the order up front. Plaintiff sent defendant a supply agreement, but it was never signed. Defendant produced the spinners to the extent plaintiffs had paid, but refused toContinue reading “No Spin Zone – “Spinners” Case Tossed on Summary Judgment”