A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


CFC
The Honorable Colm F. Connolly

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Barred from Further Calls to Chambers After Call About "Meritless" TRO Motion

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 28, 2021
Sanctions TRO

A sweetgum ball obliterated by a hatchet, a fate similar to that of plaintiffs' <a href='#' class='abbreviation' data-bs-toggle='tooltip' data-placement='top' title='Temporary Restraining Order'>TRO</a>
A sweetgum ball obliterated by a hatchet, a fate similar to that of plaintiffs' TRO Andrew E. Russell, CC BY 2.0

The practice in Delaware has long been that calls to chambers are generally only appropriate in a relatively narrow range of circumstances, and "please decide my motion immediately" is not one of them.

It looks like one plaintiff's counsel may have learned this this hard way on Wednesday when they filed a TRO seeking to enforce an arbitration clause in an employment agreement, and then immediately called the court to urge that it receive immediate attention. Here is the Court's response, issued the same day as …

View

Some Analysis of a Motion for Reconsideration that Actually Worked

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 18, 2021
LR 7.1.5 Reconsideration

Light Bulb
Alessandro Bianchi, Unsplash

While motions for reconsideration are frequently filed, they are not frequently granted. Typically they are shut down pretty easily. The rules put the moving party in a box, because parties can neither repeat arguments from their brief nor offer new arguments.

These motions are sometimes granted, though, and Judge Connolly granted one such motion late last month. I thought it would be interesting to look at what worked.

What happened?

The Court had originally granted a motion to exclude expert testimony from a defendant's infringement expert, on the grounds that the expert had testified that the presence of additional structure in a means-plus-function claim results in non-infringement.

We discussed this opinion at the time, pointing out that violating a well-established rule like that one is a great way to get an expert opinion excluded. ...

View

The Trend Towards Granting Stays Marches On

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Jan. 21, 2021
IPR Stay

Hang in there baby
Hang in there baby The Fall of Icarus, John Doyle

We discussed last month how it has, in Judge Andrews' words, become fairly routine for the Court to grant stays following IPR institution. With the recent increase in granted stays, one can see how a litigant might be tempted to fly even closer to the sun, and extend a stay through an appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Judge Connolly gave those gallant dreamers a bit of hope on Tuesday when he granted just such a motion in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, et al., C.A. No. 17-498-CFC, D.I. 101 (D. Del. Jan 19, 2021). In that case, the parties had stipulated to a stay pending resolution of an IPR. When the IPR concluded, some of the asserted claims had been upheld and others had been invalidated, and the plaintiff was appealing the invalidated claims to the Federal Circuit. Plaintiff wanted to move forward with the remaining claims against some of the defendants, while the defendants argued that the stay should continue.

Judge Connolly ...

View

Judge Connolly Rejects Attempt to Use "Emergency Motion" to Bypass Discovery Dispute Procedures

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 18, 2021
Emergency Motion Discovery Dispute

The Boy Who Cried Wolf
The Boy Who Cried Wolf Francis Barlow

Most Delaware attorneys tend to hesitate before filing an "emergency" motion, because they know how busy the Court is. The Court takes emergency motions seriously. It may defer work on other pressing issues to assist the parties with a true emergency.

I don't think anyone would want be standing before the judge (or on a conference call, or a video conference) explaining why they unnecessarily disturbed the Court's management of its docket.

Last week, Judge Connolly issued an opinion showing what may happen when a party files an unwarranted "emergency" motion.

In FinancialApps, LLC v. Envestnet, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1337-CFC-CJB (D. Del.), a trade secret and contract action, the Court …

View

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

Judge Connolly Orders a Markman Do-Over

David M. Fry, Jan. 6, 2021
10 Terms Claim Construction

In a case that's been pending for years, Judge Connolly just ordered the parties to redo their three-year-old Markman briefs.

Although the parties briefed and argued claim construction at the end of 2017, Judge Sleet granted an IPR stay before a Markman opinion was issued. While the stay was in place, Judge Sleet retired and the case was reassigned to Judge Connolly.

The parties were set to argue claim construction again this week, with 18 disputed terms from the plaintiffs' patents and 26 disputed terms from the defendant's patents. But on Monday, Judge Connolly issued an oral order cancelling the Markman hearing and ordering the parties to substantially narrow their disputes (to 10 limitations for each side's patents).

He also …

View

Words, Words, Words

Jeff Castellano, Dec. 29, 2020
Page Limits KB

Longstanding practice in the District of Delaware, pursuant to the Court's local rules and the Judges' form scheduling orders and other standing orders, mandated page limits for briefing.
For example, the Court's local rules set limits of 20 pages for opening, briefs 20 pages for answering briefs, and 10 pages for reply briefs, all in 12 point font. See LR 7.1.3(a)(4); LR 5.1.1(a). However, since about mid-2019, some Judges here have permitted or required word limits in lieu of page limits for some types of documents.

View

Threading the Needle: How to Lose a Motion for Reconsideration

David M. Fry, Dec. 11, 2020
Motion for Reconsideration Claim Construction

Threading the Needle
amirali mirhashemian, Unsplash

Motions for reconsideration are almost impossible to win, often because the legal standard requires parties to thread a very small needle. On one hand, you can't rehash arguments you already made. On the other hand, you can't raise new arguments that you could have made earlier.

Judge Connolly illustrated this catch-22 a few days ago, when the plaintiffs on the wrong end of a Markman order tried to convince the judge to reconsider one of his claim constructions. He ignored many of the plaintiffs' arguments, which "simply regurgitate the arguments [they] made in their share of the 113-page Joint Claim Construction Brief and at the Markman hearing."

The plaintiffs raised one new argument: that Judge Connolly's construction …

View

Perhaps Not the Best Way to Object to a Magistrate Judge Ruling (District Judge Strikes Letter)

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 10, 2020
FRCP 72 Objections to R&Rs

As we discussed last week, people sometimes forget that parties can object to even non-dispositive rulings by a magistrate judge under FRCP 72—although I don't know whether that is what happened here.

In Boston Scientific Co. v. Micro-Tech Endoscopy USA, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1869-CFC-CJB (D. Del.), defendants moved to strike plaintiff's infringement contentions for failure to apply the Court's claim construction. The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Burke, who denied it:

(1) With regard to Defendant's request that Plaintiffs' FICs regarding the term "breakable link... adapted to be broken[,]" be stricken, (D.I. 169 at 2), it is DENIED. The Court did not construe this term, and Defendant has not convinced the Court that Plaintiffs are …
View

Plaintiff Throws (Almost) Everything at § 101 Motion to Dismiss, Loses

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 7, 2020
MTD § 101

I couldn't find a picture of
I couldn't find a picture of "teleorthodontics" H. Shaw, Unsplash

Today, Judge Connolly held ineligible a patent directed to "teleorthodontics," i.e., a business method for practicing orthodontics remotely through the use of 3D scans of a patients' mouth.

The outcome is not all that unusual—Judge Connolly characterized the patents as essentially "do it with a computer" patents for orthodontics, where the patent claims performing a traditionally offline activity remotely using conventional computers and commercially available 3D scanners.

And, as the Court noted, other courts have held telehealth business method patents ineligible under § 101. Here, according to the Court, the patents at issue simply applied available commercial technology to the abstract idea of connecting patients and orthodontists …

View
Newer
Older

Archive