A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Courts
All courts

Update: D. Del. Jury Trials Set to Restart Next Week, But Cancellations Continue

Andrew E. Russell, March 29, 2021
COVID-19 Trial Calendar

April
Charles Deluvio, Unsplash

No further news on April jury trials since our last update. The following two jury trials still appear to be set, with the first to start on Monday of next week:

  • 4/5/2021: JHL Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. PuraCap Laboratories, LLC, C.A. No. 18-553-MN (D. Del.): The parties in this contract action just filed a letter indicating that they have made efforts at settlement, at Judge Noreika's request, but this case is still set to go forward as of now. The Court held the pretrial conference today.
  • 4/26/2021: USA v. Tyshaun Blue, C.A. No. 20-63-RGA (D. Del.): No change; this case appears to be set to go later next month.

To my knowledge, if it goes forward next week, JHL will be the first post-pandemic jury trial in the District of Delaware ...

View

D. Del. Permits FRAND Antitrust Claim to Proceed

Andrew E. Russell, March 26, 2021
MTD FRAND

A different kind of Sherman
A different kind of Sherman Sherman Tank at Clervaux Castle, Luxembourg, R Boed, CC BY 2.0

This week, Chief Judge Stark ruled on a motion to dismiss a FRAND-related antitrust claim brought by Lenovo against InterDigital relating to 3G/4G phone standards.

According to the Court, InterDigital contracted with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to license its patents at FRAND rates, and its patents were incorporated into the 3G/4G standards. The ETSI requires patentees to license their patents at FRAND rates to avoid anti-trust concerns.

Lenovo's antitrust claims allege that InterDigital, by demanding higher-than-FRAND rates, has obtained an unlawful monopoly power over the 3G/4G standards. Lenovo also alleges that InterDigital defrauded ETSI during the standards development process:

Lenovo allege[s] …
View

Divided We Infringe

Nathan R. Hoeschen, March 26, 2021
Divided Infringement

Hatchet on Log
Andrew E. Russell, CC BY 2.0

Judge Andrews issued an interesting opinion on Wednesday discussing the level of control necessary for divided infringement -- an issue that has not come up much in the district.

As the Federal Circuit laid out in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, (Fed. Cir. 2015), divided infringement requires the parties that collectively perform all of the method steps to be part of a joint enterprise, or for one of them to "direct or control the other's performance." Id. at 1022–23.

This "direct or control" requirement has historically been a pretty good grounds for motions to dismiss or summary judgment in the district. In the 5 years since Akamai …

View

Judge Connolly Takes a Stand on Post-Complaint Knowledge

David M. Fry, March 24, 2021
Willfulness Indirect Infringement

As we pointed out last July, Judge Connolly has publicly questioned (several times) whether post-complaint knowledge is enough to state a claim for willfulness or indirect infringement. Today, he answered that question with a resounding no.

In nearly two full pages of footnotes, Judge Connolly collected the conflicting authority across the nation—and within the district—on whether an infringement complaint, by itself, is enough to support the knowledge element of willful and indirect infringement claims.

He went on to explain his own views:

ZapFraud has identified, and I know of, no area of tort law other than patent infringement where courts have allowed a plaintiff to prove an element of a legal claim with evidence that the plaintiff filed …
View

Physically Impossible = Indefinite

Andrew E. Russell, March 23, 2021
Indefiniteness Summary Judgment

The nailgun at issue.
The nailgun at issue. US Pat. No. 7,156,012

Judge Connolly granted summary judgment of invalidity this week, finding three claims indefinite due to their physical impossibility.

The patent relates to a faster air-powered nail gun, which uses a trigger to control the gun by providing "fluid communication"—i.e., air flow—between air valves.

All of the patent's claims involve triggers and "fluid communication" of various sorts, but defendants picked up on some weird phrasing in one independent claim:

a trigger valve exterior frame to which the main valve control channel is fluidly connected;

Defendants argued that the "exterior frame" is solid and can't be "fluidly connected" to the trigger.

Plaintiffs disagreed, arguing that a person of skill in the art would …

View

Final Score Card for the March 12th § 101 Day Hearing

Andrew E. Russell, March 22, 2021
§ 101 Days § 101

On Friday, Chief Judge Stark released his opinion summarizing his bench rulings from his most recent Section 101 day. This is how the patents fared:

Content Square v. Quantum Metric, Inc., C.A. No. 20-832-LPS (D. Del.)

In the first case, Content Square, the Court invalidated the claims of 2 of the 5 asserted patents.

Not this kind of web crawling.
Not this kind of web crawling. Michael Anfang, Unsplash

The invalidated patents related to "heat map patents," which relate to displaying heat maps of web browsing data. These include U.S. Patent Nos. 10,063,645 and 10,079,737.

The third patent, which was not invalidated, related to "creating multiple versions of a website to determine users' preferences." Interestingly, the Court held …

View

Where to Find the OTHER District of Delaware Local Rules

Andrew E. Russell, March 20, 2021
CM/ECF KB

Sit back, relax, and enjoy this long post about <a href='#' class='abbreviation' data-bs-toggle='tooltip' data-placement='top' title='United States District Court for the District of Delaware'>D. Del</a>. local rules...
Sit back, relax, and enjoy this long post about D. Del. local rules... XPS, Unsplash

The District of Delaware's local rules are available on the court's website, but they don't tell the whole story—there are a number of critical rules and practices set forth in other documents that are not as obvious on the site.

These can really trip you up if you're not familiar with D. Del. practice.

This post is geared towards mainly towards out-of-town or in-house counsel. It covers the basics and then lays out where to find some of those other important rules if you have a …

View

The Rare Daubert Motion That Consistently Succeeds

Nathan R. Hoeschen, March 18, 2021
Damages Daubert

Daubert motions are as tough as they are common. It seems every case spawns at least one on each side, and the vast majority are denied with the Court finding that any deficiencies in the expert's methodologies are merely grounds for exploration on cross-examination.

One type that consistently beats these odds (at least in Delaware) is directed to damages experts that attempt to use the damages figures from prior jury verdicts as starting points for a hypothetical negotiation.

Judge Andrews in particular has held a hard line on this issue as shown in his decision on Wednesday in Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Charter Communications, Inc, C.A. No. 17-1734-RGA, D.I. 573 (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2021). …

View

Judge Burke Chides Parties for Time-Wasting Motion to Strike

David M. Fry, March 17, 2021
Motion to Strike Pennypack

We've written several posts about the Pennypack factors and how hard it can be to win a motion to strike in D. Del. The upshot is that it's often better to simply reach agreement on a curative remedy rather than spend time on full-blown motion practice.

Case in point: on Monday, Judge Burke denied a motion to strike a two-page supplemental expert declaration on a patentability issue. Applying the Pennypack factors, he concluded

that having to respond to the supplemental declaration (which, after all, relates to one discrete issue, and is only two pages long) would occasion some great prejudice to Defendants. The issue can be resolved by permitting Defendants to file a supplemental sur-rebuttal expert report on …
View

I Don't Object, Your Honor!

Jeff Castellano, March 16, 2021
R&R Section 101

Objections to Reports and Recommendations are something like an appeal. The District Judge is tasked with addressing the alleged errors of the Magistrate Judge de novo only to the extent they are "properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, it is the job of the parties to raise objections to an R&R in a procedurally proper way. If they fail to do so, the District Judge is hamstrung to an extent. This outcome was on display in a recent ruling by Judge Andrews, in which both sides failed to properly object to a portion of the Magistrate Judge's R&R, leaving a patent with "serious" validity problems alive (for now).

View
Newer
Older

Archive