A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Courts
All courts

Fees Motion Clears One Hurdle, Trips Over Another

Jeff Castellano, Oct. 27, 2020
Fees

Last week, Judge Noreika denied defendant Shopify Inc.'s motion for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 ("The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party."), holding Shopify partly accountable for the amount of fees it incurred during the relatively short pendency of the case. While the opinion is worth reading in its entirety, there are two particularly notable aspects to the decision.

What Shopify won't be getting
Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

First, Judge Noreika found that Shopify was the "prevailing party," on the basis of the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of its case with prejudice. While the Court had not issued any merits-based decisions prior to the dismissal, and did not itself effectuate the dismissal (it was self-executing under Rule …

View

This Is Why People Hate Having to Assert Prior Art Systems as References

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 26, 2020
Claim Narrowing Contentions

Ok, maybe not all people, and not all of the time. But in ranking the kinds of prior art I'd like to be able to assert against a tech patent, off of the top of my head, I'd rank system references pretty low:

  1. A U.S. Patent: Simple and easy.
  2. A foreign patent: Proving authenticity and publication is usually easy (but sometimes not).
  3. A journal publication: You may have to jump through some hoops, but no big deal.
  4. A Wayback Machine reference: Now one of those hoops is waiting (and waiting...) for a declaration through the Internet Archive's procedures. But it's not hard to get.
  5. A book. Now you may be dealing with librarian declarations.
  6. . . . …
View

Update on Upcoming D. Del. Trials

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 25, 2020
Bench Trial Jury Trials

Calendar
Adam Tinworth, Unsplash

Here is a list of some of the upcoming jury/bench trials in the District of Delaware.

As you can see, aside from Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years', there is one jury trial per week starting 11/16 and continuing into next year.

  • November 3: Judge Noreika has a remote bench trial scheduled in W. R. Berkley Corporation v. Niemela, C.A. No. 17-32-MN (D. Del.), a non-compete case.
  • November 16: Chief Judge Stark has a criminal jury trial scheduled in U.S. v. Aaron Davis, C.A. No. 19-101-LPS (D. Del.), a fraud case. The Court issued an order last week finding that seven witnesses could testify remotely, and making some statements …
View

Sometimes a Motion for More Pages Is More than Just a Motion for More Pages

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 22, 2020
Page Limits Claim Narrowing

Litigant requesting
Litigant requesting "extra pages" Belinda Fewings, Unsplash

This week saw the birth of a novel way to raise a claim narrowing dispute, and it strikes me as rather clever.

Typically the number of claims asserted gets raised as a discovery dispute or as part of the scheduling or status conference.

The plaintiff in TQ Delta, LLC v. Pace Americas, LLC, C.A. No. 13-1835-RGA (D. Del.), though, took a different tack and instead moved for extra pages for summary judgment briefing, explaining that it needed the extra pages because the defendant was asserting 18 invalidity defenses (against plaintiff's 2 asserted claims).

This resulted in the following turn of events:

  • Judge Andrews immediately issued an Oral Order requesting defendant …
View

Chief Judge Stark Strikes Expert Opinions Under Pennypack

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 21, 2020
Expert Discovery Motion to Strike

Pennies.
Pennies. Mark Bosky, Unsplash

I always find it interesting to see what kinds of facts that can succeed in a motion to strike. As I've mentioned, motions to strike in the Third Circuit are governed by the Pennypack factors, which can be tricky to meet and often favor lesser remedies (although the Court does strike things).

Here is what it took to warrant striking portions of an opening infringement report Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS (D. Del.):

  • Disclosing infringement contentions against five new products for the first time;
  • Relying on previously undisclosed evidence;
  • Doing so in the 8th year of a case (albeit one currently without a trial date); …
View

Court Continues to Push Back on Sealing

Jeff Castellano, Oct. 20, 2020
Sealing Redactions

Consistent with a recent trend in the District, Judge Thynge recently ordered parties to justify the continued sealing of a proposed amended complaint—even though the plaintiff had followed the ordinary sealing procedures and had submitted a redacted version of its motion to amend, including redactions to the proposed amended pleading.

Shortly after she issued her R&R denying plaintiff's motion to amend, Judge Thynge put the following notice on the docket:

ORAL ORDER: Although the Motion to Amend the Complaint was filed under seal, within ten (10) days of the docketing of the Report and Recommendation at DI 266, counsel shall file an explanation, limited to two (2) pages, as to why the Amended Complaint should remain under seal. Ordered …
View

D. Del. Schedules November 30 Patent Jury Trial, Imposes Restrictions

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 19, 2020
Scheduling Jury Trials

Chief Judge Stark on Friday scheduled the first post-COVID-19 patent jury trial that I've seen, in Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., C.A. No. 17-1616-LPS-CJB, D.I. 487 (D. Del. Oct. 16, 2020). (The potential Judge Noreika trial I mentioned recently is not going forward).

The Court had offered the November 30 date late last month. The defendant objected to it due to a conflict. The defendant also argued that the jury pool will not be representative, lacking older jurors, and that holding a trial would go against CDC guidance.

The Court was not persuaded. It did, however, set the following restrictions:

  • No live witnesses: The Court accepted a proposal that since not all witnesses can …
View

Court Orders "Unusual" Preliminary 30(b)(6) Deposition, Suggests Sanctions After Defendant Potentially "Hiding the Ball" on Damages

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 18, 2020
Damages Sua Sponte

Google tells me
Google tells me "hide the ball" is a football thing. Dave Adamson, Unsplash

In Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment, Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1394-RGA (D. Del.), plaintiff sent RFPs for various financial documents, but defendant produced only a single page profit and loss statement for each year, claiming no more was available.

Plaintiff brought a discovery dispute and asked Judge Andrews to order production of any further documents in defendant's possession.

Judge Andrews declined. Instead, he sua sponte suggested that the parties resolve this via a 30(b)(6) deposition about the kinds of financial information that defendant keeps:

[D]o a 30(b)(6) deposition and find out if there are any other documents. And you know, …
View

101 Days Are Not Always Funerals for Patents

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 15, 2020
KB 101 Day

Artist's Rendering of First 101 Day Hearing
Artist's Rendering of First 101 Day Hearing Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, from "Illustrated London News", William Luson Thomas

It was not so long ago that plaintiffs might enter a § 101 day hearing before Judge Stark with hats in hands, ready to plead for any small mercy. To some, having one's case set for a § 101 day hearing was to know the day and the hour. But that was back in the heady days of early 2019. With two new § 101-day rulings issued by Judge Stark just this week, plaintiffs need no longer dread these (approximately) quarterly events.

Claims of All Three Patents Invalidated At Inaugural § 101 Day

At the inaugural hearing in …

View

Don't Get Your Hopes Up for a New District of Delaware Patent Jury Trial Date in 2020

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 14, 2020
Scheduling Jury Trials

Unsurprisingly, in light of COVID-19, recent signs indicate that the Court is all booked up for this year, and probably for a large part of next year.

Here, for example, is a Judge Stark order from yesterday:

ORAL ORDER: Having discussed with the parties on repeated occasions whether and when to schedule this patent infringement case for a jury trial (see, e.g., D.I. 474, 549, 583, 590, 591, 593, 596, 605, 607, 608, 610-15) and having found (unfortunately) no date that is reasonable and available to all parties and to the Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that trial in this matter is CONTINUED to a DATE TO BE DETERMINED, most likely in 2021 (and certainly NOT in 2020). IT …
View
Newer
Older

Archive