A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for date: 2021

Judge Andrews Reverses Magistrate Judge's Finding of Prosecution Disclaimer

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 9, 2021
Magistrate Judges Claim Construction

This remote definitely can't decode compressed video streams by itself.
This remote definitely can't decode compressed video streams by itself. Glenn Carstens-Peters, Unsplash

Prosecution disclaimer can be tough to prove. Practiced prosecution counsel seem to know how to phrase things in such a way that a patent examiner understands them to be different from the claimed invention, but a later court may still find the opposite.

In an opinion today, Judge Andrews reversed a prosecution disclaimer finding by Magistrate Judge Fallon. The patent claims involves a "tethered digital butler" that can perform smartphone-like functions in a lower-cost way by using cheaper hardware that may be "tethered" to a desktop computer, which takes care of the heavy lifting.

Specifically, the claims discuss a "palm held remote," and the parties disputed …

View

How Many Hours of Trial Time Do You Get For a Five-Day Jury Trial? Fewer Than You Might Think

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 6, 2021
Trial KB

Chalkboard Math
Roman Mager, Unsplash

By default, patent cases in Delaware are typically scheduled for a five-day jury trial in the initial scheduling order. Sometimes, however, it seems that parties don't give any further thought about what the actually means until they need to file a pretrial order much later in the case.

Delaware jury trials are strictly timed. Those who are less familiar with how jury trials typically go may expect that they'll have more time than they really will. A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation by someone who is not in-the-know might be:

40 hours per week / 2 sides = 20 hours per side

That would be wrong. The actual, practical number of hours per side for a five-day patent …

View

Uncertain Times (ANDA Amendments)

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Aug. 5, 2021
ANDA Stay

ANDA litigation can be an odd beast. You file a case based on a product that a defendant has only applied to manufacture—what then, when the FDA requires an amendment? What of the litigation that may be years in the making and heading into the home stretch?

The somewhat tortured history of Biodelivery Sciences International, Inc. et al. v. Chemo Research, S.L., C.A. No. 19-444-CFC-CJB, gives us several examples of exactly how the Court deals with this situation.

An Early Change to an ANDA Does Not Warrant a New Trial Date

Early on in that case (about 6 months after the scheduling order was entered) one of the defendants—Chemo—received a complete response letter ("CRL") from the FDA requiring them …

View

Judge Stark Bars Late-Disclosed Witnesses from Trial

David M. Fry, Aug. 4, 2021
Pennypack MIL

Ref
Nathan Shively, Unsplash

We've written several times about the Pennypack factors—the Third Circuit standard for determining whether to exclude late-disclosed evidence. Although the standard itself is fairly lenient (focusing on prejudice and whether it can be cured), the D. Del. judges have shown an increasing willingness to exclude evidence under Pennypack in recent years.

Earlier today, for example, Judge Stark applied Pennypack to preclude four witnesses from testifying at an upcoming jury trial (two from each side). The witnesses were disclosed months after the close of fact discovery, and Judge Stark refused to force the parties to use their limited trial prep time for clean-up discovery: "there is not sufficient time in the 12 remaining days before trial …

View

D. Del. Permits "Novel Theory" of Induced Patent Infringement Against Health Insurer on a Method-of-Use Claim for a Generic Drug

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 3, 2021
Generic Drug

Pills
Christina Victoria Craft, Unsplash

Magistrate Judge Hall issued an R&R today recommending that the Court deny a motion to dismiss an inducement claim against a health insurer relating to a method-of-use claim for a generic drug.

The complaint alleges that, despite knowing that the plaintiff had a method-of-use claim for a specific treatment, the insurer nonetheless covered the patented treatment at a lower cost to patients than treatment with the name-brand drug:

The thrust of the allegations against [the insurer] Health Net are (1) that it provides coverage and payment for [co-defendant] Hikma’s generic product even in cases where Health Net actually knows that a particular beneficiary is using the generic version for an unapproved—and allegedly infringing . . …
View

Judge Andrews Gives His Thoughts on Privilege of Pre-Litigation Scientific Testing Results, Strikes "Unsolicited" Declarations

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 2, 2021
Privilege Litigation

Science!
Hans Reniers, Unsplash

On Friday, Judge Andrews issued an opinion adopting a Special Master opinion, which held that certain pre-litigation testing documents were not covered by attorney privilege.

Pre-Litigation Testing Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege If Not Provided to Attorneys

The Court found that the pre-litigation scientific testing was not covered by attorney-client privilege, even though they may have been done "at the direction of" a law firm, because the core purpose was for the client's understanding rather than for facilitating legal advice:

I do not think [plaintiff] First Quality has shown that the attorney-client privilege applies to any of the [relevant] disputed . . . documents. Plaintiff's position is that everything [the expert] Dr. Malburg did falls "well …
View

Chief Judge Connolly Declines to Apply First-to-File Rule

David M. Fry, July 30, 2021
MTD

Chief Judge Connolly issued an interesting opinion on Friday, denying a motion to dismiss a DJ complaint in favor of an earlier-filed infringement action in the Western District of Texas.

The DJ case is the second Delaware action between these parties. After Judge Connolly found the claims in the first case invalid under § 101, the patentee brought an infringement action in Texas on a "virtually identical" continuation patent.

Although the Texas case was filed first, Judge Connolly declined to apply the first-to-file rule. He based his decision not only on judicial economy (i.e., he had already devoted substantive attention to the earlier, "virtually identical" patent), but also on the patentee's "litigation gamesmanship":

Second, SmileDirectClub' …
View

A Markman First for Judge Noreika

Nathan R. Hoeschen, July 29, 2021
Indefiniteness

All teed up
All teed up Will Porada, Unsplash

I come to you, loyal reader, with hat in hand. As a reporter on the indefiniteness beat, I pride myself on being on top of all the new developments in Delaware—but it looks like one slipped by me earlier this month—Judge Noreika has issued her first order finding a claim indefinite at Markman.

It should be noted that the claims at issue in Tracktime, LLC v. Amazon.com, C.A. No. 18-1518-MN, D.I. 89 (Mem. Order, July 7, 2021) were means-plus-function claims, which Judge Noreika found indefinite for lack of a corresponding structure in the specification. See id. at 14-15. These issues tend to be easier lifts at the Markman stage for all of …

View

Chief Judge Connolly Dismisses NPE Complaint for Inadequate Detail

Andrew E. Russell, July 28, 2021
MTD FRCP 12(b)(6)

March of the Trolls
Paulo O, CC BY 2.0

Continuing our theme, another subject that often comes up in defending NPE complaints is whether the NPE's often-lackluster complaint may be vulnerable to an FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (and whether that motion can be brought economically).

Judge Connolly today dismissed a complaint by Swirlate IP, an (alleged) IP Edge entity, because the complaint mostly parroted the language of the claims and offered an unspecific website URL.

Here is an example of a typical paragraph from the complaint, which mirrors the claim language but also offers slightly more:

21. Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentality performs the step of performing the second transmission by transmitting the second data symbols over a …
View

Claim Construction Argument Costs Defendants Credibility

Jeff Castellano, July 27, 2021
IPR Claim Construction

In a short ruling issued in Deere & Co. v. AGCO Corp., 18-827-CFC, Judge Connolly rejected the defendants' motion for additional claim construction after IPR. The defendants had asked the Court to conduct further claim construction proceedings on three groups of terms, to account for allegedly inconsistent positions taken by the plaintiff during IPR proceedings on 8 of the 11 asserted patents. Judge Connolly explained that he entertained the motion for more claim construction "based on Defendants' repeated and emphatic representations that Plaintiff Deere & Company maintained . . . positions on claim construction [during IPR] that were 'diametrically opposed' to and 'fundamentally inconsistent' with positions Deere took during claim construction before me."

Judge Connolly, however, did not agree . . .

View
Newer
Older

Archive