A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Courts
All courts

Court Holds Claim Indefinite Where One of Two Claimed Ways to Infringe Is Scientifically Impossible

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 16, 2024
Indefiniteness Claim Construction

An electric signal transmitted over the air?
An electric signal transmitted over the air? Brandon Morgan, Unsplash

Judge Burke issued an interesting claim construction opinion on Thursday of last week, invalidating a claim where one of two ways to infringe was scientifically impossible.

One claim limitation was set forth in the alternative:

A communications apparatus for transmitting electric or electromagnetic signals over air

Satius Holding, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 18-850-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2024).

The parties agreed the it is "scientifically possible" to transmit "electromagnetic signals" over air, but the defendant argued that it was impossible to transmit "electric" signals over the air:

Defendants assert that one of those two options—“transmitting electric . . . signals over air”—amounts …
View

Updates: New Federal Rules in Effect, JUDGES Act in Trouble, Chancellor McCormick Active on LinkedIn (with Briefing Tips!), and More

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 13, 2024
FRE 107 DED

I have no image for this. Here are some turtles that live just across the PA/DE border, in Chadds Ford, PA (presumably for the public schools).
I have no image for this. Here are some turtles that live just across the PA/DE border, in Chadds Ford, PA (presumably for the public schools). Andrew E. Russell, displayed with permission

There were a few interesting notes this week that didn't quite warrant their own posts, so here is a combined update. We should really be on X / Twitter / Bluesky / Trends or something—I'm not sure any of these updates really warrant more than 140 characters. But here you go:

  • As the Court pointed out last week, the new 2024 Federal Rules went into effect on December 1. It looks like the changes to the FRCP are not significant, but there are some interesting changes to the Rules of Evidence, including a brand new Rule 107. We've already discussed that rule, but in short, it renames "demonstratives" to "illustrative aids" and says that "[w]hen practicable, an illustrative aid used at trial must be entered into the record." The new rules have other changes as well, including nice clarifications to FRE 1006.
  • The Associate Press reported yesterday that the JUDGES Act, which would add two new D. Del. judges, is in peril and facing a veto threat. Please keep it in your thoughts...
  • Chancellor McCormick, chief judicial officer of the Delaware Court of Chancery, is active on LinkedIn. She recently shared helpful briefing tips, including about overuse of acronyms and that you should use non-breaking spaces.
  • Delaware recently announced new CLE rules, complete with a handy explanatory document. Beware—it looks like, under the new rules, Delaware attorneys now will be fined immediately if your CLE credits aren't completed by December 31 of your compliance year and reported by January 10 of the following year. No more makeup plans! There is a transition period for this year where the dates are a bit different.
  • The Delaware FBA announced last week that Delaware Bench & Bar conference will be September 25-26, 2025. Mark your calendars, and remember that the Court sometimes issues an order bumping any filing or service deadlines that are set for those days.
  • Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas has confirmed that he is moving from Waco to Austin, pending 5th Circuit sign-off. Law360 also reports that he named his dog Mandamus, which is awesome.
  • The District of Delaware's website, like many other courts across the country, added a warning recently about fake notices of electronic filing ("NEFs") that have malicious links. Sadly I can't seem to find any more detail on this, such as what to look for. Be careful out there!
View

101 Stats Redux

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 12, 2024
101

Sadly, today's post will be an update to one of my more popular posts. So there will be no stories of childhood pets, and scarcely any amusing bon mots. Instead, we're sticking to the facts today and asking in 2024 C.E. who do you want deciding your 101 motion?

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

The rules from last time have been modified slightly. I once again took the last 10 opinions from each of our current active Article III judges as the data set (for Judge Hall, this required including some R&Rs from her time as a magistrate). This includes Rule 12 motions and motions for summary judgment (generally less common) but does not include post-trial motions. To get some more …

View

Patentee's Own Weak Interrogatory Responses Cause Denial of Its Motion to Strike Opposing Party's Late Expert Argument

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 11, 2024
Expert Discovery Expert Reports

"Behold, our fulsome and complete damages theory disclosure. I'm sure this won't cause us any problems down the line." Andy Bridge, Unsplash

Parties in patent cases are often tempted to provide bare-bones responses to contention interrogatories, offering just enough to preserve their ability to expand on the arguments later during expert reports. That's easier, obviously, than providing more detailed contentions, and it also maintains flexibility as discovery develops.

Plus, parties simply may not have fully developed their theories at the time contention interrogatories are due. Expert reports are when theories are typically fully fleshed out, after discovery has closed and the universe of information is set, more or less.

But there is another consideration as well, beyond preventing a …

View

Time Is All We Have

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 10, 2024
Stipulation Scheduling Order

We lawyers move things around all the time. Some due date or another falls on a vacation, an expert gets sick, a bunch of files won't load -- a thousand different minor catastrophes can occur. In Delaware, the result is almost invariably a stipulation to move the relevant dates.

WHEREAS, on the first day the waters turned to blood;
WHEREAS, on the first day the waters turned to blood; AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Typically for little interim deadlines, the Court will grant the stipulation as a matter of course. Deadlines a little closer to trial are a bit trickier. Judge Connolly, for instance, notes in his form scheduling order that "Should the parties later stipulate or otherwise request to have the [SJ and Daubert] reply brief deadline extended, the parties …

View

Court Declines to Enforce Discovery Agreement, Suggests Client Overruled Its Outside Attorneys

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 9, 2024
Discovery Discovery Agreement

Burning Paper Boat
Amin Moshrefi, Unsplash

Discovery agreements are a powerful tool. If you promise to produce to do or not do something during discovery, the Court will typically enforce that:

Litigating parties, represented by able patent counsel, are expected to uphold the agreements they make during a case, and the Court should ordinarily (absent extreme circumstances not present there) enforce such agreements.

The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., C.A. No. 22-057-CJB, D.I. 177 (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2024).

What are the kind of "extreme circumstances" that warrant not enforcing a discovery agreement? We got a hint of that last week in In re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent Litigation, C.A. No. 20-2930-RGA, D.I. 1683 (Dec. 5, 2024).

There, …

View

You Can't Withhold Discovery—Including Source Code—Pending a Rule 12 Motion in D. Del.

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 6, 2024
Source Code FRCP 12

This train don't stop until the close of fact discovery (... unless the Court stops it)
This train don't stop until the close of fact discovery (... unless the Court stops it) Jed Dela Cruz, Unsplash

The Court issued an oral order in airSlate, Inc. v. Inkit, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1307-RGA-SRF (D. Del.) yesterday, and it's a good reminder of a general rule that frequent D. Del. practitioners already know: once discovery starts, it generally proceeds even while a Rule 12 motion is pending.

The Court's order yesterday described how the defendant in airSlate had objected to producing its source code solely on the basis that a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending:

Defendant agreed to produce source code in its response to Request for Production …
View

Whoops! "Good Faith" Belief in Opposing Party's Breach of Settlement Agreement Insufficient to Permit New Patent Suit

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 4, 2024
Breach of Contract Settlement Agreements

This suit did not go as planned.
This suit did not go as planned. Kyriacos Georgiou, Unsplash

Judge Andrews issued an interesting opinion on opposing summary judgment motions yesterday in Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 19-2216-RGA (D. Del.).

The parties settled a patent infringement suit years ago in a way that permitted the defendant to nonetheless launch its drug product if the patent claims were asserted against a third party and found invalid or not infringed.

Some of the claims were asserted against a third party and held invalid or not infringed, and the defendant launched. The plaintiff disagreed that this permitted launch. It sued the defendant for breach of contract and, critically, for patent infringement.

Last year, …

View

The Unwelcome Guest

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 3, 2024
Claim Narrowing Contentions

Plaintiffs in the patent game tend to treat prior art references like particular unwelcome guests. There is an obvious level of affront when they arrive, tempered only by what politeness can be mustered. Once they are in the door, there are constant references to how crowded it is, how little air, how maybe we should just call it a night even though its just so much fun to see everyone.

(Eds. Note -- can you tell I'm from the midwest? I was going over this metaphor with one of the many New Yorker's I know and they seemed not to get the dynamic).

Once you finally cajole them our of the house, packed with leftovers and other bribes, it …

View

Court Declines to Strike § 282 Notice Disclosing Nearly 200 Prior Art References, Despite Stipulated Narrowing

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 2, 2024
§ 282 Case Narrowing

Some home-cooked stuffing. Apparently the photo in our Thanksgiving post was uncooked stuffing.
Some home-cooked stuffing. Apparently the photo in our Thanksgiving post was uncooked stuffing. Andrew E. Russell, displayed with permission

We're back! I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. As we'd hoped, the Court issued some interesting decisions last week, including a denial of a motion to strike in Lindis Biotech, GmbH v. Amgen, Inc., C.A. No. 22-35-GBW (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2024).

In that case, the parties had agreed to a case narrowing schedule that required the accused infringer to cut back to 6 prior art references per patent by 14 days before the pretrial order, not including references used to show the state of the art, the knowledge of one skilled in the art, …

View
Older

Archive