We wrote last week about an accused infringer's attempt to secure a TRO to force the patentee to undo their efforts to get the infringer's product de-listed from Amazon.
Judge Stark swiftly ruled on the TRO, ultimately denying it for failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits:
ORAL ORDER: Having considered all the briefing and other relevant materials . . . and having heard short oral argument yesterday, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that [accused infringer] EIS's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (D.I. 139) is DENIED. EIS has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. EIS's noninfringement argument (D.I. 140 at 7−9) turns on construction of the …
Last week, Judge Hall denied a motion to dismiss claims of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), finding that the plaintiff had "barely met the low threshold for alleging infringement of the asserted patents." The plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that the defendants imported and sold phone displays that were "remanufactured" overseas using patented methods of removing damaged glass covers from mobile phone displays so that replacement glass can be attached.
Judge Hall's R&R, issued in Viking Techs., LLC v. Squaretrade Inc., C.A. No. 20-1509-CFC-JLH, addressed four arguments made by the defendant, namely that the amended complaint: (1) did not adequately allege that the remanufacturing process performed all of the claimed steps; (2) failed to attribute specific misconduct to either defendant; (3) did not allege pre-suit notice; and (4) failed to allege infringement under 271(g) because the accused devices are not "made" by the accused process and are "materially changed" by subsequent processes.
On the first argument, the sufficiency of the allegations that the remanufacturing process met all claimed steps, Judge Hall found that "Viking has barely met the low threshold" for pleading infringement. Although the allegations of infringement in the complaint largely tracked the claim language, and did not include allegations of infringement for every claim mentioned in the complaint, Judge Hall found that the allegations were "sufficient to provide Defendants notice of the grounds on which Plaintiff’s claims rest," including "what portion of their business—mobile device repair—and what specific products—those that have had the display assemblies repaired/remanufactured—are accused of infringement." Citing the Federal Circuit's Nalco decision, she explained that there is simply "no requirement that a plaintiff plead facts establishing that each limitation of an asserted claim is met." ...
Here's one I haven't seen before. In EIS, Inc. v. Intihealth GER GmbH, C.A. No. 19-1227-LPS (D. Del.), the counterclaim-defendant filed a motion for a TRO to force the patentee defendant to withdraw infringement notices it provided to Amazon.com regarding the counterclaim-defendant's products, and to force them to request that Amazon restore the product's ranking and reviews on the site:
Plaintiff EIS Inc. (“EIS”) respectfully moves the Court to grant a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendants, requiring them to withdraw their patent infringement notice(s) to Amazon that reference EIS’s “Satisfyer” products, and ordering that the withdrawal shall request that Amazon restore EIS’s product listings with the same rankings and customer reviews …
Conventional components arranged in an unconventional way.Devilz, Unsplash
Judge Burke today denied a § 101 motion to dismiss relating to a patent with a single, lengthy claim related to a new type of system-on-a-chip (SOC) that eliminates redundant components by using multiple "media processing units."
The claim sets out the structure of the apparatus, including that the media processing units have certain features and functions:
1. An apparatus for processing data, comprising:
a plurality of media processing units, each . . . :
a multiplier . . . ;
an arithmetic unit . . . ;
an arithmetic logic unit . . . ; and
a bit manipulation unit . . . .
each of the plurality of media processors for performing at least one . . . operation comprising:
receiving . . . an instruction . . . ;
receiving . . . input/output data . . . ;
processing the data . . . ; and
providing at least one . . . result . . . .
Judge Burke found that the claims were not directed to the abstract idea ...
As we've mentioned, Judge Stark has been nominated to the Federal Circuit. He had his nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. The full video is available on the Judiciary Committee web site: Link to Video.
In the video, Judge Stark's introduction by Delaware Senators Carper and Coons starts at 49:27, and Judge Stark himself appears at 1:04:42. The introductions are about 7 minutes long, and the questions run for about 30 minutes.
Some highlights about Judge Stark, mostly from the introductions:
14 years on the bench
6000 civil and criminal cases
2400 patent cases
93 trials (63 patent trials)
2100 written opinions
Only 2% of his opinions reversed or affirmed with criticism
In light of how busy the District of Delaware is right now, between COVID-19-related trial delays and just the ongoing burden of complex of patent filings (not to mention the likely impending departure of Judge Stark), I was curious just how often parties consent to jurisdiction over an action by a magistrate judge.
After all, we've all seen the "notice, consent and referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction" that are filed in new cases. Surely parties sometimes take the Court up on this, right?
The answer appears to be: yes, but not all that often. At least according to Docket Navigator, there have been only 12 cases in the District of Delaware since 2012 where …
At a claim construction hearing earlier this month, Chief Judge Connolly noted some concerns with parties who offer "plain and ordinary meaning" constructions without explaining what that meaning is:
THE COURT: And going forward, Mr. Oakes, Mr. Russell, I am tempted to say the next time I get this situation [where] one side, the plaintiff[,] says, oh, plain and ordinary meaning and offers no alternative definition and all it does is criticize the defendant['s construction], which there's some actual[ly] support for, [then] I don't hold a hearing. I'm just going with the defendant. I was really tempted to do that in this case. So get the word out.
Volterra Semiconductor LLC v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2240-CFC-SRF, at 22:22-23:7 (D. Del. Nov. 12, 2021) (transcript).
Chief Judge Connolly also pointed out a "new trend" of parties ...
All six challenged patents survived Judge Stark's most recent § 101 Day, held on November 22, 2021. The six patents were spread across three cases. Continuing his usual practice, Judge Stark ruled from the bench after hearing argument in all three cases, and then issued a written order (see below) incorporating the transcript of his bench ruling and the formal orders on the pending motions.
In the first case, considering Step One of the Alice framework, Judge Stark found that the challenged patent was not directed to the abstract idea posited by the defendant ("an algorithmic method of manipulating and combining genetic sequence data using an [intermediate] data set") and instead "enables the identification of mutations with positional accuracy in a computationally tractable manner," solving a prior art problem - notably, that sequence assembly providing for accurate detection of variants was often computationally intractable for high-throughput analysis.
Judge Stark denied the motion to dismiss based on the Step One analysis.
In the second case, Judge Stark took the somewhat unusual path of deciding Step Two of the Alice test before Step One. He explained:
The Federal Circuit has employed a similar approach and resolved 101 issues at Step Two in several of its cases, ...
At a claim construction hearing the week before last, Chief Judge Connolly discussed the pitfalls of a party proposing "plain meaning" as a construction without specifying what the plain meaning is, and how that may just end up deferring disputes until later in the case. We'll have a post about that once the transcript is available.
In the meantime, I thought it was interesting that Judge Andrews this month declined to adopt opposing proposed constructions from the parties in an action, and construed the term as "plain and ordinary meaning":
Plaintiffs expert Dr. Robert Ruffolo asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term "pharmaceutical batch" to incorporate [a] regulatory definition . . . …
This week, Chief Judge Connolly denied a joint request for leave to present an early SJ motion on damages in a patent action. The parties hoped that resolution of the motion would set the stage for settlement.
Judge Connolly reiterated his rule that he will not permit early SJ motions unless they are going to be the onlySJ motions, while also commenting on his case load:
As a general rule, I do not allow for an early summary judgment motion unless the resolution of the motion would be case dispositive and the party seeking to file the motion agrees that it cannot file any other summary judgment motions. In light of my case load, which approaches 600 civil cases …
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
