A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


DED
United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Judge Hall Cuts Parties' Trial Time after Seventh Discovery Dispute Hearing

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 18, 2023
Trial Time Trial

"Do we want to bring this discovery dispute, or do we want to cross their corporate rep at trial? Choices, choices..." Vladislav Babienko, Unsplash

We've written before about how the Court sometimes sets up escalating obstacles for parties who are insensitive to the Court's time and bring too many discovery disputes. In that case, the Court gave the parties "homework" (writing letters to the Court) after their seventh discovery dispute.

In Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, C.A. No. 22-1377-MN-JLH (D. Del.), the Court referred all pre-trial matters up until dispositive motions to Magistrate Judge Hall.

Judge Hall took action after the parties brought what looks like seven discovery disputes. The docket shows the Court's escalating response to the parties disputes:

  • June 1 - First teleconference
  • June 16 - Second teleconference
  • July 7 - First in-person hearing
  • July 14 - Second in-person hearing
  • August 3 - Third in-person hearing
  • September 1 - Fourth in-person hearing; Court warns that future disputes will be charged to trial time
  • September 14 - Fifth in-person hearing; Court charges the parties' trial time

Guessing from the docket, it looks like the parties brought a number of rapid-fire discovery disputes starting on June 1. For the third dispute in about a month, the Court increased the friction on the parties by forcing them to come to Delaware to argue the disputes.

That doesn't seem to have slowed them down at all. After three in-person disputes ...

View

Thoughts on "When Will the Court Decide Our Summary Judgment Motions in the District of Delaware?"

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 15, 2023
Trial Practice Summary Judgment

Treasure Map
Nadjib BR, Unsplash

After reading the decision in Nate's post yesterday, it occurred to me that we haven't addressed a common question in cases in the District of Delaware: When will the Court decide the parties' summary judgment motions?

This is a question that comes up a lot. I think that sometimes, in clients' minds, summary judgment motions are something that is resolved quickly. The parties brief their motions, the Court immediately turns to them, and then an opinion should come out in a week or two. Right?

No. That's not true in any U.S. district court I've practiced in, and the District of Delaware is no different. The Court is extremely hardworking but also overwhelmingly busy.

The …

View

A Really Crummy License

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 14, 2023
Damages Daubert

Many years ago, before Andrew made me put a picture in EVERY TURTLE-CURSED POST, I wrote a post about the very easiest Daubert motion to win. As a brief refresher, it turned out to be a motion to exclude a damages experts reliance on a jury verdict point as the starting point for a hypothetical negotiation. Both Judge Andrews and Judge Burke were particularly firm on the issue, coming just short of setting a bright-line rule:

A jury verdict does not represent evidence from which a hypothetical negotiation can be reliably determined. A jury verdict represents the considered judgment of twelve (or maybe fewer) random non-experts as to what a hypothetical negotiation would have resulted in for the patent(s) …
View

Judge Hall Shuts Down Attempt to Hold Miniature Inequitable Conduct Trial Before Summary Judgment

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 11, 2023
Bench Trial Inequitable Conduct

"Hmm, I wonder if the Court would do two trials..." Juan Rumimpunu, Unsplash

Defendants are often looking for ways to resolve cases early—§ 101 motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, early summary judgment motions, and so on. Sometimes these can succeed, but it can vary a lot depending on the judge and the circumstances.

Here is one I haven't seen before: In Ravgen, Inc. v. Biora Therapeutics, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1734-RGA-JLH (D. Del.), the defendant moved for the Court to schedule a one-day bench trial on inequitable conduct just after the close of expert discovery, and before the summary judgment deadline—around 7-10 months before trial.

Their logic was that a "single one-day …

View

Take That, Boat News!

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 7, 2023
Prior Art

Casual readers might not be aware, but we at IP/DE have a long-running feud with the Swedish publication, "boat news." They think they're so great just because they're all so tall and they write about cool boats. Well, someone finally had the nerve to tell those ruggedly handsome jerks what for.

Wahhhhhhh! No one reads my boat magazine!
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

That brave soul was Judge Andrews in yesterday's opinion in MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc., C.A. No. 21-92 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2023) (Mem. Op.).

The defendant, Waydoo, alleged that the asserted patent was anticipated by a paper written by a bunch of Swedish engineering students as part of a project. Unlike the famous thesis in In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the students project wasn't indexed in a library, but was simply placed on the website for the college course. Apparently, it was downloaded by 17 people.

A dispute thus arose as to whether this paper was "publicly accessible" (and thus prior art). In support of the contention that the paper was accessible, Waydoo noted that Boat News had written an article about the project that included a link to the paper (riveting, I'm sure). Waydoo contended that this article would have led the magazines many readers to the paper.

Judge Andrews, however, noted the obvious flaw ...

View

Court Grants JMOL and Reverses $19m Verdict Against Google—Did Google's Motion in Limine Save It?

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 6, 2023
MILs Motion in Limine

Audio Player
Firmbee.com, Unsplash

Motions in limine can feel like some of the most impactful-feeling motions in the case. Unlike most motions in our busy federal courts, they are typically addressed very quickly, and almost always by the judge handling trial. They are also normally addressed immediately prior to trial. As such, even if the MIL is denied, the issues presented in the MIL may remain at the top of the judge's mind and can influence the direction of the trial (and make subsequent objections easier).

We got an example of that yesterday in Personal Audio, LLC, v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 17-1751-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 5, 2023). In that case, Chief Judge Connolly granted a post-trial JMOL …

View

A Neat On-Sale Bar Fact Pattern

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 5, 2023
On-Sale Bar

Today, I present a gift to the many patent law professors that read this blog every morning (presumably). I give you a truly odd fact pattern that can be inserted neatly into your next exam, and which is guaranteed to annoy your students. All I ask in return is that you require those students to subscribe to the blog in perpetuity, on penalty of failure.

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Deal? Deal.

The issue here was the on-sale bar. As a quick refresher, that's this bit of 102:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

The patents in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Elysium Health, Inc., C.A No. 20-1098-GBW (D. Del. Aug 30, 2023) covered distinct crystal forms of a compound called "NCRI." Shortly before the critical date of July 24, 2013, the patentee had agreed to sell some NCRI to a customer. There was a PO and ...

View

Competitor Cannot Escape DJ Action, Even Absent Specific Allegation of Infringement

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2023
MTD Motion to Dismiss

It's clear who was the faster draw.
It's clear who was the faster draw. AI-Generated

In Candid Care Co., v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, C.A. No. 21-1180-CFC (D. Del.), SmileDirectClub sued Candid Care—its competitor—for patent infringement of a single patent. Chief Judge Connolly dismissed the case, holding that the patent was patent ineligible under § 101.

The next day, SmileDirectClub sued Candid Care on a second patent in the same family, this time in the Western District of Texas.

But the Western District of Texas transferred the case back to Delaware—and, because it is related to the previous case, it was assigned to Chief Judge Connolly again. Shortly thereafter (perhaps to avoid its second patent suffering a similar fate under § 101), SmileDirectClub granted …

View

Where there's A Will, There's A Won't

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Aug. 29, 2023
Willfulness Advice of Counsel

Rowan Heuvel, Unsplash

Here's a fun fact for you—in the 7 years since the Supreme Court's decision in Halo, the use of the word "pirate" in Federal Court opinions has increased by 23%. This can probably be attributed to the following passage which shifted the focus of the enhanced damages inquiry from "willfulness" to something a bit looser and more . . . arrrggguable:

The sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously described in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate . . . .

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 103-04 (2016)

There are worse legacies. But I digress.

The oft-cited loosy-goosy standard above has lead to an interesting split in decisions about how the enhanced damages provision, 35 U.S.C. 284 (which does not specifically reference willfulness), interacts with Section 298 (the only section of the patent act to actually refer to willfulness):

The failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel with respect to any allegedly infringed patent, or the failure of the infringer to present such advice to the court or jury, may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed the patent . . .

The question is, once a jury has found willful infringement, can the Court then consider the failure to obtain advice of counsel in determining whether to enhance damages?

Last week, Judge Kennelly held that 298 did not prevent the Court from considering the failure to obtain advice of counsel, and awarded ...

View

Judge Williams Offers a Judge-Burke-Style Response to a Pre-Institution Motion to Stay

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 28, 2023
Pre-Institution Stay Stay Pending IPR

I'm not sure if
I'm not sure if "Ddrops" stands for "dew drops." But this is a nice picture regardless. Aaron Burden, Unsplash

We've talked about how pre-institution stays can be tough (but not impossible) to achieve, and about how Judge Burke has sometimes responded to a pre-institution motion to stay by asking for a status report and abbreviated briefing after the institution decision:

Therefore, no later than five business days after the PTAB rules on whether it will institute IPR as to the last of the petitions at issue, the parties shall provide the Court with a status report of no more than two single-spaced pages, indicating the outcome of the petitions and whether Defendant wishes to renew its Motion. If Defendant does wish to renew the Motion then, the Court will set a further (truncated) briefing schedule.

eBuddy Technologies B.V. v. LinkedIn Corporation, C.A. No. 20-1501-RGA-CJB, D.I. 108 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2022) (Burke, J.).

Last week, Judge Williams adopted a similar view, denying a pre-institution motion to stay but offering to revisit the issue after the institution decision—and to take the previous briefing into account:

ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed Defendant MOM Enterprises, LLC's ("MOM") Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review ("IPR") . . . , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew the request if the IPR is instituted. A court has discretionary authority to grant a motion to stay. . . . Because no institution decision has yet been issued, the Court will decline to stay the case until it hears from the PTAB. . . . By no later than five (5) business days after the PTAB issues its institution decision as to the IPR petition relating to the asserted patent, the parties shall file a joint letter updating the Court on the results of the PTAB's decision. If the PTAB grants the IPR petition, and if MOM then wishes to renew its Motion, MOM should include in the joint letter a statement that it intends to renew its Motion. The Court will then set a letter briefing schedule on the renewed Motion. When reviewing the renewed Motion, the Court will take into account the briefs already filed as to the instant Motion. ORDERED by Judge Gregory B. Williams on 8/25/2023.

Ddrops Company v. MOM Enterprises, LLC, C.A. No. 22-332-GBW, D.I. 108 (D. Del. Aug. 25, 2023). This mirrors Judge Burke's previous order, although Judge Williams' order doesn't state whether the later briefing will be truncated—that may depend on the circumstances.

Judge Williams' practice is useful to know because, obviously, it affects the calculus of whether it is worthwhile to bring a pre-institution stay motion at all.

View
Newer
Older

Archive