A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Litigation

On the Perils of Not Agreeing to a Reasonable Case Management Request

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 7, 2021
Expert Discovery Litigation

Caution Tape
Hiroshi Kimura, Unsplash

I came across this case today, and I thought it was a good example of why, in Delaware, it can be dangerous to be seen as acting unreasonably, particularly when it comes to things like discovery disputes and case management.

Plaintiffs filed a first case in 2018, asserting infringement of a single patent. Earlier this year, it filed a second case against the same defendant for a newly-issued patent relating to the same subject matter.

Plaintiffs sought to consolidate the two cases because they involved similar facts:

[The cases involve] identical parties, identical accused acts of infringement, the same accused process, and related patents with identical inventors, materially identical specifications, and overlapping claim terms.

Defendants opposed …

View

Defendant's Attempt to Raise Inventorship Defense at Trial Blocked

Jeff Castellano, Nov. 10, 2020
Preclusion Litigation

Earlier today, Judge Connolly issued a ruling precluding a defendant from pursuing its inventorship theory under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). The ruling is notable because the request for preclusion came at trial after the defense was included in the parties' pretrial order. Nonetheless, Judge Connolly found that the circumstances justified exclusion.

ani-kolleshi-7jjnJ-QA9fY-unsplash.jpg
Ani Kolleshi, Unsplash

Although defendant Sandoz's final contentions had raised an inventorship defense, it was focused on misjoinder as opposed to nonjoinder, Judge Connolly explained.

And although Sandoz included a nonjoinder defense in its portion of the pretrial order, Judge Connolly noted that "given the number of contested facts and issue of law Sandoz identified in the 8,629-page PTO, I would not fault Plaintiffs if they failed …

View

Waiver, and How the Judges Have Handled Public Access to Remote Hearings

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 24, 2020
Litigation COVID-19

It's interesting that the Court is now regularly offering public access information for remote hearings. I can't recall it doing that before the coronavirus.

The only pre-coronavirus remote hearings I can think of were for scheduling and discovery dispute conferences, where public access is not usually a concern. Scheduling conferences often took place privately in chambers even when they were in-person, and discovery dispute conferences often involve confidential information anyway. It looks like they judges are still handling these how they always have.

These days, however, the Court regularly holds all kinds of other, more substantive hearings remotely, and most of the judges have been taking steps to allow the public to attend. Here is what the judges have been …

View

The Kind of Mistake That Gets Your Expert Testimony Excluded

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 21, 2020
Litigation Daubert

[UPDATE: Apparently not! This opinion was reversed on a motion for reconsideration; further update below]

Judge Connolly today struck portions of an expert report where the expert opined that the accused product did not infringe because it included extra components in addition to what was claimed in a means-plus-function claim element.

According to the Court, this is contrary to the well-established principle that additional structure does not preclude infringement of an MPF claim element, if the required structure is also there.

[UPDATE: As the Court recognized on reconsideration, that was not what was happening here. Instead, the expert was pointing out that the opposing party's expert had failed to identify the a structure that performed the function, not that the …

View

Chief Judge Stark Reschedules Xcoal Trial, Says "This District Hopes and Expects to Resume Jury Trials . . . This Month"

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 8, 2020
Litigation COVID-19

Artists' rendering of the anonymous letter
Artists' rendering of the anonymous letter Brando Makes Branding, Unsplash

Chief Judge Stark today rescheduled the Xcoal trial for Wednesday of next week. The trial was previously derailed following receipt of an anonymous letter just after opening statements.

The opinion (embedded below) has a great summary of the facts of the trial so far, which are very unusual.

In resuming the trial quickly, he hoped to deter others from sending similar "anonymous letters" to interfere with other trials. He also noted that this is the only time the Court will have available for bench trials in the near future, because of the backlog of criminal and civil jury trials which should start back this month:

[T]his District hopes and …
View

No expert? No problem. Maybe.

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 7, 2020
Litigation Pennypack

Empty Chair
Giorgio Trovato, Unsplash

Sometimes people think that they have to offer expert testimony to rebut the other side's expert on every single issue. That's not true, at least when the other side has the burden of proof.

I've represented a defendant in a jury trial representing where we offered no damages expert at all, and it worked out well (under the circumstances—I'm definitely not saying it's a good general strategy). We poked holes in the opposing expert's theories, and the other side had no way to return fire and no reply report in which the fix the issues.

Judge Andrews addressed something like that last week in an opinion on a motion in limine. Defendant had offered expert …

View

Court Unseals Transcript of "Whistleblower" Letter that Derailed Xcoal Trial

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 31, 2020
Sealing Litigation

Last week I wrote about the Xcoal breach-of-contract bench trial, which was adjourned after opening statements due to an "anonymous letter" discussed at a sidebar.

The Court has now unsealed the transcript of that sidebar, which includes the contents of the "anonymous letter" (as read into the record).

It turns out that the letter, signed "Xcoal whistleblower" and sent to defendants' counsel, alleges that plaintiff Xcoal's founder had planned to "cause a default" on the contract at issue, so that the company could collect on a $10 million guarantee that was part of the contract.

It alleges that he planned "to cause default by delayed coal shipments, withhold payments, and extract penalties from [defendant] Bluestone."

The contract involved lab …

View

Xcoal Trial Derailed by "Anonymous Letter," like "Something Out of a John Grisham Novel"

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 26, 2020
Trial Litigation

Artist's rendering of the
Brando Makes Branding, Unsplash

The trial in Xcoal Energy & Resources v. Bluestone Energy Sales Corp., C.A No. 18-819-LPS (D. Del.) was adjourned this morning following receipt by the parties of an "anonymous letter." The trial had started yesterday, after the Court previously overruled Xcoal's due process objections to a remote trial.

All of the discussion of the letter was at sidebar, so its contents are not yet public. But it must be something interesting!

The parties had asked for a sidebar immediately after opening statements yesterday. Counsel mentioned that the situation is like "something out of a John Grisham novel."

At the sidebar, they read the "anonymous letter" into the record, and both parties …

View

Chief Judge Stark Posts Public Zoom Link for Trial Starting Tuesday [Updated]

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 24, 2020
Litigation COVID-19

Today, Chief Judge Stark posted a public Zoom link for a bench trial starting Tuesday morning:

The bench trial is available to the public by telephone, using dial in: 1−703−552−8058 Code: 944408, or by video, using the following link: https://trialgraphix.zoom.us/j/93843275500, Meeting ID: 938 4327 5500 and Passcode: 974842. Audio or video reproduction of the proceeding is strictly prohibited.

This is a competitor case involving a contract for the delivery of coal—it's the one where the defendant attempted to delay the trial using due process arguments. Trial is scheduled to start Tuesday and run through Friday:

  • Tuesday, August 25: 9 am to 5 pm
  • Wednesday, August 26: 9 am to 5 pm
  • Thursday, August 27: 8:30 am to 10 …
View

Judge Andrews Cites Size of Latham & Watkins in Denying Schedule Extension After Change in Counsel

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 21, 2020
Litigation Scheduling

Stopwatch
Stopwatch Veri Ivanova, Unsplash

In First Quality Tissue, LLC v. Irving Consumer Products Ltd., C.A. No. 19-428-RGA (D. Del.), defendant swapped its previous counsel, Michael Best, for Latham and Watkins, and sought a twelve-week extension of the schedule.

The parties agreed that some kind of extension was needed regardless of the change in counsel, with numerous pending disputes, 24 noticed depositions, and only 3 days left in discovery. Plaintiff proposed a 4-week extension. Even with four weeks, the parties would likely have to dual-track the depos to get them done in time.

Judge Andrews, however, did not buy the idea that a change in counsel warrants a large schedule extension, and held that the responsibility for …

View
Newer
Older

Archive