A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Declaratory Judgment

Court Denies Request to Limit Scope of DJ Claims Via Motion to Dismiss for Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Andrew E. Russell, July 16, 2025
Motion to Dismiss Declaratory Judgment

Photograph showing the proper procedural mechanism to undo subject matter jurisdiction in this instance.
Photograph showing the proper procedural mechanism to undo subject matter jurisdiction in this instance. Delorean Rental, Unsplash

In CogniPower LLC v. Fantasia Trading LLC, d/b/a AnderDirect, C.A. No. 19-2293-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), a patent suit, the Court granted a third-party supplier's motion to intervene back in 2020. Since then, based on the docket, the patentee has been trying to dismiss the intervenor from the case.

Today, the Court issued its order denying a motion to dismiss by the patentee, and it addresses to interesting issues regarding an effort to limit the scope of the Court's judgment based on subject matter jurisdiction.

First, the patentee tried to dismiss the claims based on an argument that, five years after …

View

Court Dismisses TGL Golf DJ Trademark Action (And Cites Caddyshack, Tin Cup, and Happy Gilmore)

Andrew E. Russell, June 16, 2025
Declaratory Judgment

The Cliffs of Insanity (from The Princess Bride)
The Cliffs of Insanity (from The Princess Bride) Saad Chaudhry, Unsplash

I saw this opinion last week and figured it would make for a nice lighthearted Friday post, but it got bumped to today when I decided to instead post about parties consenting (or not) to hearings and trial in E.D. Tx. So this is now a lighthearted Monday post.

Decades ago, former Chief Judge Robinson was known to occasionally include Princess Bride movie references in her opinions. See, e.g., Adkins v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 95-315-SLR, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17707, at *19 n.5 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 1995) (after a party called offering a more specific amended pleading …

View

Competitor Cannot Escape DJ Action, Even Absent Specific Allegation of Infringement

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2023
MTD Motion to Dismiss

It's clear who was the faster draw.
It's clear who was the faster draw. AI-Generated

In Candid Care Co., v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, C.A. No. 21-1180-CFC (D. Del.), SmileDirectClub sued Candid Care—its competitor—for patent infringement of a single patent. Chief Judge Connolly dismissed the case, holding that the patent was patent ineligible under § 101.

The next day, SmileDirectClub sued Candid Care on a second patent in the same family, this time in the Western District of Texas.

But the Western District of Texas transferred the case back to Delaware—and, because it is related to the previous case, it was assigned to Chief Judge Connolly again. Shortly thereafter (perhaps to avoid its second patent suffering a similar fate under § 101), SmileDirectClub granted …

View

Archive