A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Court Holds It's All of Nothing When It Comes to Patentee Lexicography

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 12, 2023
Lexicographer Claim Construction

Corn
Katherine Volkovski, Unsplash

Judge Andrews issued a claim construction opinion today resolving an interesting dispute.

The parties disagreed as to whether the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer. Here is the text from the patent spec:

As used herein, the term “plant” includes reference to whole plants, plant organs (e.g., leaves, stems, roots, etc.), seeds and plant cells and progeny of the same. “Plant cell,” as used herein includes, without limitation, seeds, suspension cultures, embryos, meristematic regions, callus tissues, leaves, roots, shoots, gametophytes, sporophytes, pollen, and microspores.

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Syngenta Seeds, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1280-RGA, D.I. 72 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2023).

Seems pretty clear, right?

Not so much, according to the plaintiff. It argued that one of the specification's definitions shouldn't apply to the term as it was used in the claim. Here is ...

View

Filing a Patent Complaint in the District of Delaware: A Checklist

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 11, 2023
Complaint KB

Filing the complaint is often one of your earliest interactions with a new client. Don't mess it up!
Filing the complaint is often one of your earliest interactions with a new client. Don't mess it up! AI-Generated, displayed with permission

It's time for another in our series of knowledge base posts. This time: Filing a patent complaint in the District of Delaware.

It's honestly not all that difficult to file a complaint. But, still, when I do it, I sometimes wonder: Am I forgetting anything?

I thought I'd post a non-exhaustive checklist of items that should be included when filing a complaint, with some light commentary.

But first, a disclaimer! This is a non-exhaustive list, and it may contain errors. Consult your counsel, particularly your Delaware counsel. Do not treat this as legal advice for your particular situation. …

View

"The Court cannot countenance a world where, for no good reason at all, parties simply wait until middle of expert discovery to disclose new theories."

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 10, 2023
Motion to Strike Pennypack

"Why were we late? Aliens! No wait—bigfoot. I don't know." Albert Antony, Unsplash

We've talked about how, when deciding whether a late disclosure should result in waiver, the Court applies the Third Circuits rather forgiving Pennypack factors.

We've also discussed how you really ought to have a reason for a late disclosure.

On Friday, we saw another example of that in Natera, Inc. v. CareDX, C.A. No. 20-038, D.I. 392 (D. Del. Oct. 6, 2023). Magistrate Judge Burke rejected the idea that a party can just not bother to provide an explanation for its late disclosure:

ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's motion to strike certain [expert] opinions . . . hereby GRANTS the remaining …
View

Defendant Sweeps Summary Judgment, Winning SJ on Contract, Trade Secret, Trade Dress, and Non-Infringement of Two Different Patents

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 7, 2023
Harm Breach of Contract

Five
Ryan Johns, Unsplash

Wow! This is something you don't see every day. The defendant in Truinject Corp. v Galderma S.A., C.A. No. 19-592-GBW (D. Del.) filed—and won—five motions for summary judgment.

Impressively, each of the five motions had its own grounds. This isn't an instance where one winning argument resolved five motions.

Here are the five motions:

  • Breach of Contract: No damages. The Court granted summary judgment that because the alleged harm was not actually caused by the breach, there can be no damages.
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation: No misappropriation. Plaintiff showed that misappropriation could have happened—because employees had access and worked on defendant's product—but offered no evidence that it did happen.
  • Non-Infringement of Patent 1: …
View

The Shotgun Misses The Shortest Shot

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 5, 2023
excerpts Redactions

So much in our world is phrased in dire, and certain, terms. "No Running," "High Voltage," "Angry Birds"—

Bellini looks evil, but she wants you to know that she loves you and she is just as fluffy as she appears
Bellini looks evil, but she wants you to know that she loves you and she is just as fluffy as she appears Me, displayed with permission

It can be hard to differentiate between those warnings that are merely distant precautions (check engine), and those that represent an understanding of a dark and heartless fate (again, angry birds). An example may help to illustrate this point.

I give you the following passage in Judge Connolly's form scheduling order on the use of pincites:

Pinpoint citations are required in all briefing, letters and concise statements of facts. The Court will ignore any assertions of uncontroverted facts and controverted legal principles not supported by a pinpoint citation . . .

Scheduling Order [Non-Patent Case], Para. 4 (Rev. March 2, 2020)

Looking at that, one might think there was some wiggle room. One would be incorrect.

We know this courtesy of a recent teleconference in In re: Seroquel XR Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 20-1076-CFC (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2023) (Hearing Tr.). One of the plaintiff groups had submitted briefing in support of their motion for cert and attached 466 pages of expert reports without any pincites. The defendants filed a later complaining about the issue as well as the general attachment of entire reports and transcripts rather than exhibits.

Judge Connolly then ...

View

"Emergency" Attempt to Extend SJ Deadlines Fails

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 4, 2023
Extension Emergency Motion

Emergency
Jason Leung, Unsplash

Generally Delaware counsel are downright accommodating when it comes to granting extension requests. One common refrain is that "if we don't grant it, they'll just move, and the Court will grant it."

Often that's true—I've seen multiple successful emergency motions to extend deadlines after opposing counsel unreasonably denied an extension. Typically these seek a short extension (a few days, or sometimes 30 days for a response to a complaint) and are backed by good reasons.

Uh Oh - An Emergency Extension Motion Fails

That's why I thought it was interesting to see an "emergency" attempt at extending a deadline fail, in Speyside Medical, LLC v. Medtronic Corevalve, LLC, C.A. No. 20-361-GBW-CJB (D. Del.). …

View

Another Day Older And Deeper In Debt

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 3, 2023
Mavexar

Just today Judge Connolly issued another opinion in the Mavexar cases, denying the motion by Backertop Licensing LLC's sole member to stay the Court's order sanctioning her for failure to appear for a hearing.

As you may recall, the witness initially attempted to appear via teleconference, citing financial concerns and responsibilities at home and at work. Judge Connolly denied the request, and she ultimately failed to appear for the hearing. Thus began a running fine of $200 per day (that the Court is open) until she appears.

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Shortly thereafter, Backertop moved to stay enforcement of the order pending appeal. Judge Connolly denied that motion in a short opinion today noting that success on appeal was unlikely:

I think it unlikely that Backertop and Ms. LaPray will prevail in their appeal. Indeed, were Ms. LaPray's reading of Rule 45 to be adopted by the Federal Circuit, a resident of Hawaii (which is more than 100 miles from any other federal judicial district) could form a shell LLC, give the LLC no assets except for a questionable patent, assert the patent in frivolous infringement lawsuits filed under the LLC' s name in the other 93 federal judicial districts, and have the LLC engage in fraudulent and sanctionable conduct through the course of those suits with impunity

Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., C.A. No. 22-572-CFC, D.I. 62 at 5-6 (D. Del. Oct 3, 2023)

Given the track record of Mavexar appeals so far, this seems a fair assessment.

And so the fine continues to pick up steam. By my count, it has currently been building for 31 taxable days. for a total of $6,200 smackeroos.

Given that state of affairs, I thought ...

View

"[T]he briefing is so lacking that it borders on comical . . . The Court is truly dumbfounded at Plaintiffs’ failure to cite any portion of the trial record . . . ."

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 2, 2023
Contributory Infringement Judgment as a Matter of Law

Artist's illustration of one of the parties' briefs.
Artist's illustration of one of the parties' briefs. Carl Tronders, Unsplash

I wanted to call out the interesting quote in the title, which comes from an opinion Judge Noreika issued on Friday granting-in-part post-trial motions in a patent case.

The quote is in the context of a motion for JMOL of no post-suit indirect infringement because the accused infringer didn't encourage users to infringe. The Court was very disappointed in the parties' briefing:

[T]he Court must still address Defendants’ remaining complaint as to indirect infringement. Defendants argue that there was no evidence at trial to suggest that they encourage others to infringe the ’502 and ’386 Patents, which is required for a finding of inducement liability. On this point, …
View

Judge Williams Follows Judge Noreika on IPR Estoppel Split (Also: Interesting Prior Art Search Analysis)

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 29, 2023

We're running out of good
We're running out of good "the court is split" images. Alice Yamamura, Unsplash

The scope of IPR estoppel is a tricky issue that courts have gone different ways on. Everyone agrees that a party cannot argue invalidity in an IPR based on a prior art product (as opposed to reference), and that IPR estoppel extends to art the petitioner "reasonably could have raised" during the IPR.

Courts have gone different ways, however, when it comes to whether a party can assert invalidity at trial based on a product that embodies a reference that was asserted or could have been asserted at an IPR. In D. Del., as we've discussed, Judge Stark held that a …

View

Obviousness Type Duuuhhhhhble Patenting

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 28, 2023
ODP Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Judge Andrews appeared to break new ground in ODTP law yesterday with his post-trial opinion in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd., C.A. No. 19-1727-RGA (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2023).

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

(eds. note - I refuse to abbreviate it "Lab'ys." The legal profession has committed more than its fair share of dark linguistic sins, but if Shakespeare wasn't long dead this would have killed him. Actually, check on your favorite author to make sure they survived this edition of the bluebook).

Anyway.

The issue arose in the unusual case where a patent issued and received a term extension of a few hundred days. The patentee filed a continuation which issued a few years later. Because the continuation did not receive a term extension it actually expired before the first patent. Plaintiff (Allergan) submitted this helpful chart with the briefing:

Seriously, it's a nice chart!
Seriously, it's a nice chart! Allergan

Id., D.I. 428 at 4 (Joint Status Report, Plaintiffs' position)

The parties agreed the relevant claims of the two patents were not patentably distinct—the issue was, does ODTP apply in where the first-filed, and first-issued, patent is the one being invalidated?

The Federal circuit had recently answered part of that question in In re Cellect, LLC, 2023 WL 5519716, at *9 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023), where it held that OTDP applied to patent term extensions generally. Cellect, however, did not involve ...

View
Newer
Older

Archive