I have not asked Andrew, but I am knee deep in ribbons and bows and am about to leave for a Christmas on cape cod. I don't see many opinions coming out this week, so I'm calling it for the week.
Happy Holidays to all our readers, we'll see you soon!
[Ok Nate, you can shut down the blog for the holidays. But I cannot abide a violation of our picture policy. I've added a photo of my favorite homemade ornament. - Andrew]
Judge Burke issued an interesting claim construction opinion on Thursday of last week, invalidating a claim where one of two ways to infringe was scientifically impossible.
One claim limitation was set forth in the alternative:
A communications apparatus for transmitting electric or electromagnetic signals over air
Satius Holding, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 18-850-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2024).
The parties agreed the it is "scientifically possible" to transmit "electromagnetic signals" over air, but the defendant argued that it was impossible to transmit "electric" signals over the air:
Defendants assert that one of those two options—“transmitting electric . . . signals over air”—amounts …
There were a few interesting notes this week that didn't quite warrant their own posts, so here is a combined update. We should really be on X / Twitter / Bluesky / Trends or something—I'm not sure any of these updates really warrant more than 140 characters. But here you go:
Sadly, today's post will be an update to one of my more popular posts. So there will be no stories of childhood pets, and scarcely any amusing bon mots. Instead, we're sticking to the facts today and asking in 2024 C.E. who do you want deciding your 101 motion?
The rules from last time have been modified slightly. I once again took the last 10 opinions from each of our current active Article III judges as the data set (for Judge Hall, this required including some R&Rs from her time as a magistrate). This includes Rule 12 motions and motions for summary judgment (generally less common) but does not include post-trial motions. To get some more …
Parties in patent cases are often tempted to provide bare-bones responses to contention interrogatories, offering just enough to preserve their ability to expand on the arguments later during expert reports. That's easier, obviously, than providing more detailed contentions, and it also maintains flexibility as discovery develops.
Plus, parties simply may not have fully developed their theories at the time contention interrogatories are due. Expert reports are when theories are typically fully fleshed out, after discovery has closed and the universe of information is set, more or less.
But there is another consideration as well, beyond preventing a …
We lawyers move things around all the time. Some due date or another falls on a vacation, an expert gets sick, a bunch of files won't load -- a thousand different minor catastrophes can occur. In Delaware, the result is almost invariably a stipulation to move the relevant dates.
Typically for little interim deadlines, the Court will grant the stipulation as a matter of course. Deadlines a little closer to trial are a bit trickier. Judge Connolly, for instance, notes in his form scheduling order that "Should the parties later stipulate or otherwise request to have the [SJ and Daubert] reply brief deadline extended, the parties …
Discovery agreements are a powerful tool. If you promise to produce to do or not do something during discovery, the Court will typically enforce that:
Litigating parties, represented by able patent counsel, are expected to uphold the agreements they make during a case, and the Court should ordinarily (absent extreme circumstances not present there) enforce such agreements.
The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., C.A. No. 22-057-CJB, D.I. 177 (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2024).
What are the kind of "extreme circumstances" that warrant not enforcing a discovery agreement? We got a hint of that last week in In re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent Litigation, C.A. No. 20-2930-RGA, D.I. 1683 (Dec. 5, 2024).
There, …
The Court issued an oral order in airSlate, Inc. v. Inkit, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1307-RGA-SRF (D. Del.) yesterday, and it's a good reminder of a general rule that frequent D. Del. practitioners already know: once discovery starts, it generally proceeds even while a Rule 12 motion is pending.
The Court's order yesterday described how the defendant in airSlate had objected to producing its source code solely on the basis that a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending:
Defendant agreed to produce source code in its response to Request for Production …
Willfulness is something of a bête noir in patent law. By any objective measure, it's all but irrelevant to damages. Although 284 technically allows for up to treble damages, in practice the odds of any enhancement, even if the jury finds that infringement was willful, are no better than 10-20%.
But of course, this is not the whole story. The prevailing theory is that it is to plaintiffs' advantage to present a willfulness case in order to cast the defendant as the conniving villain rather than merely a competing manufacturer of dryer sheets or what have you. If nothing else, it makes for a more compelling narrative. And so, the parties will often devote significant resources to keep this objectively marginal issue in or out of the case.
Should all defendant's efforts to slay the issue fail, the last line of defense is typically a motion to bifurcate the issue for trial. This used to be fairly common in the District, with Judge Robinson in particular being a famous proponent of bifurcating damages and willfulness, but it's employed less frequently in recent years.
Last week, Judge Williams denied ...
Judge Andrews issued an interesting opinion on opposing summary judgment motions yesterday in Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 19-2216-RGA (D. Del.).
The parties settled a patent infringement suit years ago in a way that permitted the defendant to nonetheless launch its drug product if the patent claims were asserted against a third party and found invalid or not infringed.
Some of the claims were asserted against a third party and held invalid or not infringed, and the defendant launched. The plaintiff disagreed that this permitted launch. It sued the defendant for breach of contract and, critically, for patent infringement.
Last year, …
