Ouch. In Nivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 24-846-GBW (D. Del.), the patentee plaintiff filed suit to stop a competitor from launching a drug that it says would infringe its patents, after the competitor received FDA approval.
(Because this was not an ANDA, there was no automatic stay.)
The plaintiff filed a TRO motion on August 13, shortly after its complaint. For at least two of the …
Each of our judges in Delaware has one or more form scheduling orders that sets limits on things like the number of motions in limine (typically 3), pages limits for summary judgment and Daubert motions (typically 40/40/20 or 50/50/25), and discovery dispute procedures.
Here is a scenario I've seen a couple of times:
We don't often write about claim construction opinions, because they can be very fact-specific. But Judge Hall's opinion yesterday in Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, C.A. No. 22-1377-JLH (D. Del.) included some generally applicable points worth noting.
There's a reason we've all seen countless discovery documents, disclosures, expert reports, and briefs that are larded up with endless reservations of rights: sometimes they work!
This is one of those times. The patentee (Apple) had filed a response to invalidity contentions regarding a design patent in an IPR. In it, Apple described the scope of its patent, but included a reservation stating that it wasn't taking claim …
Deadline extensions are perhaps the most common of all requests to the Court. I have seen requests granted for medical reasons, conflicts with deadlines in other cases, prescheduled vacations, and the need to enact a dark ritual which can only take place when the moon fears to rise (we'll have a post about that one on the future, assuming the ritual is unsuccessful and does not result in all things returning to dust beneath the sacred ash and the profane oak).
Today's post, however, is a tale of an extension denied. The defendant in Purdue Pharma LP v. Accord Healthcare Inc., C.A. No. 22-913-WCB, D.I. 111 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2024) had prevailed on its obviousness defense following a bench trial and filed a timely motion for fees 14 days after the Court entered final judgment.
The plaintiff, however, apparently intended to appeal the invalidity determination and thus requested that the defendant stipulated to defer briefing on fees until after the resolution of that appeal. When the defendant refused to stipulation, plaintiff moved to defer briefing until after the appeal and requesting expedited consideration of the motion (as the clock was already ticking on its 2-weeks to file a responsive fees brief).
Unlike in the true to life examples listed at the start of the blog, the plaintiffs motion was not based in any particular conflict with client or counsel. Instead, the deferment was based on the general proposition that "the appeal may impact or otherwise refute the bases for Accord’s motion." Id., D.I. 108 at 2. The defendant filed a short opposition to the motion, noting that this logic would apply to essentially any motion for fees.
Judge Bryson denied the motion to defer the briefing in a short order:
The motion to defer briefing on Accord's motion for attorneys fees 108 is denied. The court will determine when to rule on Accord's motion for attorneys fees after the briefing is complete.
We'll keep a watch out for that fees opinion and let you know if it comes before or after the appeal.
Yes, this is yet another Pennypack post. I can't resist. It's a tough-to-apply standard that impacts many cases (patent and otherwise). And it can sometimes seem to reward bad behavior by litigants, even—maybe especially—when applied as written.
But not this time! In Prolitec Inc. v. ScentAir Technology, LLC, C.A. No. 20-984-WCB (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2024), the patentee produced documents about a pre-priority-date sale of prior art after fact discovery closed and just five days before opening reports.
Unsurprisingly, the other side's opening expert report five days later did not include invalidity allegations about this sale.
But the …
Attorneys spend a lot of time threatening fee awards when dealing with an NPE, even though they can be challenging to get. So I always think it's interesting to see what kinds of behavior will support a fee award.
Last week, Judge Williams issued a memorandum order granting fees in Extremity Medical, LLC v. Nextremity Solutions, LLC, C.A. No. 22-239-GBW (D. Del.). The Court listed three bases for its fee award. First, the patentee made zero showing of any pre-suit investigation of invalidity:
[T]here is no dispute that Defendants notified Plaintiff of [prior art references] Marcus and Chandran several years prior to the date …
I find all of my best posts in footnotes.
They are the home seemingly idle musings about the scope of the law and arguments that might have been made in a better world.
There is a freedom in the foot.
Judge Wolson had a particularly striking footnote in his post-trial opinion in Med-El Elektromedizinisch Gerate GES.M.B.H. v. Adv. Bionics, LLC, C.A. No. 18-1530-JDW (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2024), which dealt with an important issue that I had not seen before in the district.
The plaintiff had gone to trial on both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and for both induced and contributory infringement. The verdict form, however, did not …
When re-filing things that were pulled from PACER, the Court has said that parties should remove the old CM/ECF headers:
CORRECTING ENTRY: The redacted public version of D.I. 157 at D.I. 161 has been replaced with a version that does not contain CM/ECF headers. Counsel is reminded to remove CM/ECF headers from previously-filed documents when filing.
ESCO Group LLC v. Deere & Company, C.A. No. 20-1679-WCB (D. Del. Feb. 9, 2023).
That way, when the document is later pulled from the docket, you don't get the overlapping and unreadable headers at the top.
If you don't redact them, it can end up looking something like this:
I believe it used to be possible to remove these …
Short answer - yes, obviously.
Long answer - also yes, also obviously, but the timing is important.
The issue came to the fore in I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrx, Inc., C.A. No. 22-276-CJB (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2024) (Mem. Ord.). I-mAB is a DTSA action alleging the theft of about a dozen separate trade secrets. A few months back, the plaintiff went through a restructuring that resulted in several related entities now owning some or all of the trade secrets. The plaintiff then moved to add these entities as co-plaintiffs. Judge Burke denied the motion due to the potential for delay, given that the case was scheduled for trial int he near future.
Unsurprisingly …
Earlier this year Judge Hall bifurcated the upcoming patent trial in Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, C.A. No. 22-1377-JLH (D. Del.), keeping Apple's patent claims, the related invalidity and unenforceability defenses, and a portion of a Walker Process anti-trust counterclaim—but moving other claims to a later trial:
ORAL ORDER: Having held a case management conference on March 20, 2024, . . . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a 5-day jury trial is scheduled beginning October 21, 2024, with a pretrial conference scheduled for October 4, 2024 at 11:00 AM in courtroom 6D. The remaining claims and defenses in C.A. No. 22-1377 and C.A. No. 22-1378 shall be joined and/or bifurcated for trial such …
