A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


CJB
The Honorable Christopher J. Burke

Restraint in Claim Construction

Jeff Castellano, Aug. 11, 2020

"Plain and ordinary meaning" has a mixed record as a claim construction position. Despite the fact that the claim language itself is the heart of claim construction, litigants and judges may feel pressure to define claim language that is already reasonably clear, especially if there is a dispute tied to that language. In fact, judges in this District have expressly discouraged litigants from advancing "plain and ordinary meaning" as a proposed construction during the Markman process.

However, there is no reason that the language of the claim itself - if sufficiently clear - cannot stand on its own, even if there is a dispute. The challenge (and burden) for the Court lies in sorting through the alleged disputes, discarding those …

View

Judges Connolly and Burke Hold That Arguments Omitted from Reply Are Conceded

Andrew E. Russell, June 26, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

While we're talking about reply briefs—Judge Connolly this month affirmed Judge Burke's conclusion that a defendant had "abandoned" arguments that it set forth in its opening brief, because the defendant failed to further address those arguments in a reply after receiving pushback in the answering brief.

Here is what Judge Burke said:

In its opening brief, Defendants appeared to challenge these claims on two other grounds . . . . However, after Plaintiff pushed back on these issues in its answering brief, Defendants did not further address the issues in their reply brief. . . . Thus, Defendants have abandoned these arguments and the Court will not further address them herein.

Judge Connolly disagreed that such arguments are …

View

Motion to Amend Filed Before Deadline Not Untimely

Andrew E. Russell, June 23, 2020
FRCP FRCP 15

The judges' form scheduling orders in D. Del. require deadlines for motions to amend, tracking FRCP 16(b)(3)(a), which says scheduling orders must limit the time to amend pleadings.

In an oral order on Friday, Judge Burke granted a motion to amend an answer that was filed on the day of the deadline set in the scheduling order.

He described how difficult it would be for a party to argue that a motion to amend was untimely when it was filed before the agreed-upon deadline:

It would be the unusual case where a Court had previously determined (at the parties' request) that amendment could be allowed by a certain date without causing harm to the case schedule, and yet …
View

"Plausibility" Shows Its Teeth

Jeff Castellano, June 23, 2020
R&R MTD

Judge Burke's exacting standards regarding the sufficiency of pleadings in a patent case were on display in a recent R&R, in which he recommended dismissing indirect and willful infringement claims. This ruling demonstrates that although plaintiffs are not required to prove their case as the pleading stage, they are well advised to bolster their complaint with allegations that link the elements of their claims to specific facts.

The key passages of the 24-page R&R in Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Vistra Energy Corp., C.A. No. 19-1334-RGA-CJB concern what makes an infringement claim "plausible" under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.

View

"Though the Pennypack factors may be very forgiving, they are not a sieve."

Andrew E. Russell, June 19, 2020
Discovery Dispute Pennypack

This is not an illustration of the Pennypack factors in action
This is not an illustration of the Pennypack factors in action Lindsay Cotter, Unsplash

I just came across the above quote, which is from a discovery dispute back in April where Judge Burke struck a very-late-disclosed witness.

It's an interesting—and accurate—description of the Pennypack factors. Most DE patent litigators are familiar with Pennypack, which set forth a loose set of factors for deciding whether to apply the "extreme" sanction of excluding "critical" evidence. Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n, 559 F.2d 894, 905 (3d Cir. 1977).

Even though Pennypack issued way back in 1977, modified versions of its list of factors are still applied today. When they come up, they most often favor the party producing …

View

"Sandbagging" and the District of Delaware

Andrew E. Russell, June 3, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Sandbags
ideadad, Unsplash

In an R&R this week, Magistrate Judge Burke flatly declined to consider a "critical[]" argument raised for the first time in a reply brief:

In their reply brief, Defendants made one other argument, which they failed to raise in their opening brief . . . . (D.I. 37 at 9 (“Critically, neither of these manuals refer to the named defendants in this case[.]”)) Because this argument could have and should have been raised in the opening brief, it has been waived, and so the Court will not consider it here. See McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Italia S.p.A., 840 F. Supp. 2d 801, 803 n.2 (D. Del. 2012); LG Display Co., Ltd. …
View

Judge Burke Rejects Defendant's Maybe-Too-Clever Attempt to Escape Delaware

Andrew E. Russell, June 1, 2020
MTD

Magistrate Judge Burke issued an R&R today addressing an interesting procedural situation.

In Shure Incorporated et al v. Clearone, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1343-CJB (D. Del. June 1, 2020), the plaintiff moved to amend to add an additional patent, just before the patent issued.

In response, and before oral argument on the motion, the defendant filed a DJ action on the new patent in another jurisdiction, trying to keep that part of the case out of the District of Delaware.

After the Court granted the motion to amend, plaintiff then moved to dismiss under the first-filed rule.

Judge Burke rejected plaintiff's approach, holding both that the amended complaint related back, so it was filed first, and that …

View

Judge Andrews Rejects Footnote "Incorporating" Eight Pages of Prior Briefing

Andrew E. Russell, May 29, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Judge Andrews today rejected a portion of a defendant's objections to an R&R because the defendant set forth its objections in "a footnote, which purport[ed] to include about eight pages of the earlier briefing." Sapp et al v. Industrial Action Services, LLC et al, No. 19-912-RGA, at 10 (D. Del. May 29, 2020) (emphasis added).

He held—perhaps not surprisingly—that this "is an insufficient objection." Id.

That said, he did sustain the same defendant's objections to other portions of Magistrate Judge Burke's R&R, although he called the underlying legal issue a "close call." Id. at 8.

View
Newer

Archive