A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Courts
All courts

Important Mechanical Note for Filings with Visiting Judges Kennelly and Wolson—And Maybe for All D. Del. Filings

Andrew E. Russell, June 15, 2023
Visiting Judges CM/ECF

At a hearing today, Judge Kennelly set forth his preferences on how parties files documents in CM/ECF. He explained that he deals with all filings electronically, and large exhibits as permitted by the Delaware CM/ECF system interfere with his work flow.

He threatened to deny motions going forward (at least in that case) if parties combine exhibits in that way, specifically pointing to the following docket item:

Judge Kennelly Example

As you can see in the highlight, the party combined multiple exhibits into sub-filings, which makes it difficult and slow to download, and impossible to download individual exhibits.

Judge Kennelly prefers that parties do it this way:

Judge Kennelly Example - Correct

Visiting Judge Wolson has expressed similar concerns for similar reasons, and his procedures go a step …

View

Answers to Some Common Questions About Joint Claim Construction Briefing in D. Del.

Andrew E. Russell, June 14, 2023
Joint Claim Construction Briefing Sandbagging

We're really starting to run out of good, free pictures of sand bags for these posts.
We're really starting to run out of good, free pictures of sand bags for these posts. Karen Barrett, Unsplash

At this point, all of the D. Del. judges have adopted a joint claim construction brief procedure invented by Judge Andrews, where the parties serve opening, answering, reply, and surreply briefs, and then file a single combined joint claim construction brief that presents the arguments term-by-term. This means that the parties and the Court can work from a final, combined joint brief where all of the arguments match up.

This is a great procedure and everyone seems to like it. Certain questions tend to come up about it, though.

Common Questions on the Joint Claim Construction Brief

First, parties …

View

Thoughts On the Mavexar "Mansplaining Brief," Which Accuses the Court of "Gender Harassment and Intimidation"

Andrew E. Russell, June 12, 2023
Mavexar Reconsideration

"Sure, I had my LLC sue a bunch of people in Delaware, but I didn't think the Court would actually make me GO there." Andrew Russell, CC BY 2.0

I guess our post about the Mavexar hearing last week was remiss in failing to talk about the "mansplaining brief." I've had a couple of people ask me about it. Here is the background and some quick thoughts.

Chief Judge Connolly Orders Mavexar-LLC's Sole Member to Testify In Person

The short version of the leadup: Mavexar is an entity that creates LLCs to assert patents against tech companies for quick settlements, often in Delaware. The LLCs take all of the risk, and Mavexar keeps 90-95% of the profits while hiding its …

View

Court Rejects Mavexar Attorneys' Motions to Withdraw, Grills Them on Efforts to Hide Mavexar from Court

Andrew E. Russell, June 8, 2023
Mavexar

Backertop's—or Mavexar's—Two Attorneys
Backertop's—or Mavexar's—Two Attorneys AI Generated

The Court held a lengthy hearing in the Backertop cases today. These are Mavexar-related actions and, if you recall, they involve a Mavexar attorney and his wife, who he appointed as the sole member of a Mavexar patent assertion entity.

How a Patent Assertion Entity is Born

Some of the Court's questions focused on exactly what Mavexar does, and confirmed that they operate basically as set out in the earlier hearings.

Here, from the lawyer's perspective, Mavexar attorneys reached out and said that Mavexar wanted to start several litigation campaigns, and asked whether the attorney was interested. They said that they would figure out what entity would actually assert the patents later.

In …

View

Court Continues to Offer a Choice: Consent to Magistrate Judge or Be Referred to Visiting Judge

Andrew E. Russell, June 7, 2023
Visiting Judges Congestion

Doors
Jacob Culp, Unsplash

Over the last two weeks, Chief Judge Connolly issued orders in about 15 different groups of cases offering the choice between consenting to magistrate judges Burke (in some cases) or Fallon (in other cases), or being referred to a visiting judge:

ORAL ORDER: It is HEREBY ORDERED that on or before June 13, 2023, the parties shall either (1) submit to the Clerk of Court an executed Form AO 85 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge, indicating their consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and post-trial proceedings; or (2) file a joint letter indicating that …
View

Danged If You Do, Danged If You Don't, Danged If You Sort-Of Do And Sort Of Don't

Nathan R. Hoeschen, June 6, 2023
Claim Construction

In almost every case I have as a defendant, there's a moment around claim construction when I'm just sure I've got the plaintiff dead to rights. Under one construction, there's no infringement—under the other, the patent's invalid. I've just gotta turn the crank on the vise until those conniving jerks pop.

I had a different picture here before but it was . . . pretty dark
I had a different picture here before but it was . . . pretty dark AI-Generated, displayed with permission

More often than not, however, this insoluble dilemma dissolves and I'm left cranking air.

It was thus with noticeable relish that I read Judge Bataillon's post-trial opinion in CR Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics Inc. C.A. No. 1-15-218-JFB-SRF (D. Del. June 1, 2023)—where this spring was finally sprung.

The trap was—weirdly—in the term "suitable." The patents claimed a method for identifying a medical injection port as one of those "suitable" for high pressure applications such as CT scans (as well as apparatuses for doing the same). Apparently, the wrong sort of ports will explode if you use them for CT scans, so it's important for the doctor to know which kind you have.

The issue that came to the fore at trial was whether a "suitable" port was one that was ...

View

Judge Andrews Cancels Markman, "Dismisses" the Parties' Briefing After Parties Seek Construction of 16 Claim Terms

Andrew E. Russell, June 5, 2023
10 Terms Claim Construction

"We didn't need that joint brief anyway ... (sob)" Jeff Kingma, Unsplash

Judge Andrews issued an interesting order on Friday. Based on the docket, it looks like the parties had fully completed the Markman process (disclosures, meet-and-confer, joint claim chart, and joint brief), and had briefed a total of 16 terms. Judge Andrews then canceled the Markman and "dismissed" the briefing:

ORAL ORDER: The parties have submitted a joint claim construction with the request that I construe at least 16 terms including, for example, comprising and patient. I think that if I postpone the Markman hearing, some of these disputes may fall away. Therefore, the Markman hearing scheduled for June 23 is cancelled. The Markman briefing is dismissed. The …
View

New Visiting Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan Adopts Judge Andrews's Procedures

Andrew E. Russell, June 2, 2023
Visiting Judges Congestion

Pittsburgh, PA, home of the Western District
Andrew E. Russell, displayed with permission

Last week, the District of Delaware began assigning patent cases to visiting judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of W.D. Pa. As far as I can tell, these are the first D. Del. cases to be assigned to Judge Ranjan.

Following the assignments, Judge Ranjan issued the following order in each case:

ORDER, regarding practices and procedures of Judge Ranjan. I was recently reassigned several patent cases in the District of Delaware. In order to provide some degree of procedural consistency, I intend to follow all local rules and standing orders of the District of Delaware, and I intend to utilize Judge Andrews forms and orders, until further notice. So counsel should comply with all …
View

This Is Not A Blog Post

Nathan R. Hoeschen, June 1, 2023
Ex Parte Communication

It takes a lot to get a legitimate audible laugh out of us at IPDE, but Judge Noreika managed it with one of her orders this week:

On 5/25/2023, the Court issued an Oral Order stating in part that "[t]he Court will not...accept further ex parte emails." Nevertheless, on 5/30/2023, the Court received an ex parte email stating: "We are not attempting to have an ex parte communication entered into the files. By the attached letter, we are attempting to comply with this Court's orders. Will you please provide the Honorable Judge Noreika the attached letter." The Court does not accept ex parte communications. The Court notes, however, that the referenced "attached letter" states that the patents-in-suit are "no longer …
View

In Forcing Witness to Attend Hearing in Mavexar-Related Case, Chief Judge Connolly Sets Out His Views on Post-COVID Remote Hearings

Andrew E. Russell, May 31, 2023
Mavexar COVID-19

TV
Possessed Photography, Unsplash

Chief Judge Connolly issued a memorandum order in the Backertop case today. We talked previously about how the plaintiff in Backertop is an LLC whose sole member is a paralegal who is married to an attorney who works at Mavexar, who gets just 5% of the proceeds of litigating the patents owned by the LLC (the rest goes to Mavexar).

Following a hearing last year, the Court ordered production of various documents, and ordered the owner of the LLC to appear again for a hearing on June 8. She asked to attend remotely due to other obligations.

Today, Chief Judge Connolly denied her request, but rescheduled her appearance for July (the June 8 hearing will still …

View
Newer
Older

Archive