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.
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.
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 ...
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 …
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 ...
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 …
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 ...
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.
Local Rule 7.1.5 governs motions for reargument, sometimes styled as motions for “reconsideration.” As we’ve noted, the deadline to move for reargument or reconsideration can be easy to miss. The deadline is just 14 days after the order or opinion, and there are no CMECF reminders to flag it for counsel.
What Is a motion for reargument?
A request for “clarification” of the Court’s prior order may be interpreted as a motion for reargument/reconsideration. But a motion for reargument is not a do-over. In fact, you cannot rehash arguments you already made—and you cannot make new arguments you could have raised earlier.
As we've covered exhaustively in the past, it's becoming increasingly rare for Delaware Judges to consider indefiniteness at Markman, and it's rarer still to see someone get over the hump and knock a patent out.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Judge Andrews, however, is still willing to show a patent who's the boss at Markman (even for a non means-plus-function claim) as demonstrated this week in Genzyme Corp. v. Novartis Gene Therapies, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1736-RGA (D. Del. August 18, 2023).
The term at issue was, unsurprisingly, opaque:
Forms intrastrand base pairs such that expression of a coding region of [a] heterologous sequence is enhanced relative to a second rAAV vector that lacks sufficient intrastrand base pairing to …
When we last wrote about Mavexar, Chief Judge Connolly had held a civil contempt hearing after he ordered the sole member of Backertop, a Mavexar-related LLC, to appear in-person in Delaware and she failed to appear (she instead initiated a head-on challenge to the authority of the Court). She likewise failed to appear for her contempt hearing.
Today, the Court issued its opinion and order, holding the witness in contempt. It handily dispatched with each of the witness' arguments against the hearing.
It easily rejected their first argument—that the Court lacks jurisdiction after the entity, Backertop Licensing LLC, dismissed it's complaint. The Court reiterated the same ruling it made last time.
Next, the Court easily rejected the idea that civil contempt is "meant to benefit the complainant," citing multiple U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the contrary. It also rejected the idea that a party can re-litigate the underlying order in context of a contempt proceeding.
I found the Court's discussion of the alleged Fifth Amendment violation interesting, particularly when the Court attempts to identify exactly which Fifth Amendment right it could possibly have ...
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.
