A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


DED
United States District Court for the District of Delaware

This One's Going To Keep Me Up At Night

Nathan R. Hoeschen, March 2, 2023
Litigation Scary Stories

A lot of things can go wrong in law. Keeping track of the labyrinthine tangle of laws, local rules, standing orders, and judicial preferences, is a daunting task. Checking and re-checking documents to make sure they comply with all of these rules is enough to make a person a bit neurotic. But, with the aid of experience and some hard lessons, you eventually come to grips with things and develop a certain comfort with the systems hard edges.

Until of course you stumble upon something new to worry about, and then you get the shakes all over again.

This cartoon is much darker than I intended, but I'm out of credits for the month
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

To that end, I submit to you this footnote in Cipla USA, Inc. v. Ipsen Biopharms., Inc., C.A. No. 22-552-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2023) (R&R), on the dangers of not checking your links:

In support of this assertion, Ipsen cites an "Update to Information Regarding Medicare Payment and Coding for Drugs and Biologics," dated May 18,2007. (D.I. 23 at 4 n.4) A document by the same name and having the same date is referenced in Cipla's complaint. (D.I. 1 at [Paragraph] 5c) To the extent that these documents are, in fact, the same, the court may consider them as "matters incorporated by reference" into the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. See Kickjlip, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 677, 682 (D. Del. 2013). In this case, however, there are different hyperlinks associated with the document in the complaint and in Ipsen's reply brief. (Compare D.I. 1 at, 5c with D.I. 23 at 4 n.4) The hyperlink in the complaint functions, whereas the hyperlink in the reply brief does not. Ipsen does not set forth any basis for the court's consideration of the material, and the court cannot independently verify whether this material is the same as the document referenced in the complaint due to the defective hyperlink.

Id. at 7 n.4.

Oof. To Summarize here -- the defendant moved to dismiss and cited a document that was linked in, but not attached to, the complaint. The Court declined to consider it, because the link in the brief was ...

View

Chief Judge Connolly Launches Nukes from Orbit, Unseals Most of Case's Docket, Sparking Emergency Motion to Stay

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 27, 2023
Sealing Star Chamber

That smoking crater is all that's left of the patent assertion entity's effort to hide its identity.
That smoking crater is all that's left of the patent assertion entity's effort to hide its identity. AI-Generated

We've talked before about how the free ride on sealed filings is starting to end. Late last week, we got another reminder of that from Chief Judge Connolly.

In WSOU Investments, LLC v. SalesForce, Inc., C.A. No. 23-27-CFC (D. Del. Feb. 23, 2023), one of the parties filed a "motion for leave to file under seal" some of its briefing, exhibits, and—notably—its Rule 7.1 statement.

The case is a small miscellaneous action seeking to compel discovery relating to a W.D. Tex. patent action.

In response to the motion for leave to file under seal, Chief Judge Connolly elected to review all sealed filings on the docket. He went so far as to follow up with the judge in the underlying W.D. Texas action:

WSOU's motion for leave to file under seal prompted me to review all the filings the parties have maintained under seal to date.
I started with the parties' briefs (D.I. 3; D.I. 16; D.I. 20); and, because the parties justified the sealing of those briefs in part because the briefs quote from a sealed discovery hearing conducted by Judge Gilliland in the Western District of Texas, I shared copies of the briefs with Judge Gilliland to get his views on the appropriateness of maintaining the briefs under seal. I determined, and Judge Gilliland agreed, that no good cause exists ...
View

No, the Doctrine of Equivalents Doesn't Extend to Literally the Opposite of What Was Claimed

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 24, 2023
DOE Summary Judgment

Laura Ockel, Unsplash

The Doctrine of Equivalents can sometimes be an irritating aspect of patent law. Patent applicants tend to draft broad claims to begin with, and modern claim construction law likewise tends towards broad constructions. Once you add DOE on top, it can start to feel like the patent covers anything and everything.

But there is a boundary. Under the doctrine of "vitiation," courts have held that DOE can't be used to extend a claim to the oppose of what was claimed.

We got a good example of that this week from visiting judge Kennelly, who granted a motion for summary judgement of non-infringement after a seemingly fully-articulated DOE claim (DOE claims are often not-so-well articulated).

In …

View

Judge Williams: Failure to Disclose Indefiniteness Argument in Invalidity Contentions Is No Bar to Arguing Indefiniteness During Claim Construction

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 22, 2023
Invalidity Contentions Indefiniteness

Milwaukee
Mark Rohan, Unsplash

Yesterday, Judge Williams issued a claim construction opinion in Persawvere, Inc. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, C.A. No. 21-400-GBW (D. Del. Feb. 21, 2023).

In the joint claim construction brief, plaintiff asserted that defendant had waived its indefiniteness arguments because it did not include them in its invalidity contentions:

Given that Defendant failed to raise an indefiniteness argument in its Invalidity Contentions concerning terms 3 and 4, see Ex. 8, Defendant has waived this defense.

D.I. 47 at 30. In the case, the scheduling order required both initial and final invalidity contentions; defendant did not mention indefiniteness in its initial contentions, and the deadline for final contentions had not yet passed.

The defendant …

View

Customer Suit Exception Argument Fails Where Patentee Asserts Additional Patent Against Customer—Even If the Issues May Be Similar

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 20, 2023
Motion to Stay Customer Suit Exception

Factory
Ant Rozetsky, Unsplash

It's fairly common for a patentee to bring suit simultaneously against both a customer who is using or reselling an infringing product and the manufacturer who produced the product.

Sometimes the customer is the real target, and sometimes it's the manufacturer. Either way, some courts have recognized a "customer suit exception" that suggests that, under some circumstances, suits against a manufacturer should take precedence over a suit against a customer.

As courts sometimes point out, the customer suit "exception" began as an exception to the first filed rule in patent cases. But courts can also apply the principle more broadly, including to motions to stay.

For example, last week Judge Williams addressed a motion to stay …

View

A Protective Order Loophole

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 16, 2023
Protective Order

I was always disappointed when I became a lawyer that my day-to-day work did not involve more loopholes. You watch any TV show -- Law & Order (original or extra crispy (that's SVU)), The Good Wife, Matlock, all you hear is loophole this and loophole that. But every day I come into the office and its just the regular old law. It just seemed less clever than a loophole.

I didn't ask for him to be holding a cheeto, and I can't explain why he is #Snacknet
I didn't ask for him to be holding a cheeto, and I can't explain why he is #Snacknet AI-Generated, displayed with permission

I was thus borderline ecstatic to see Judge Burke deciding a discovery dispute over what seems to be a genuine loophole in a protective order.

The prosecution bar in FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. v. Roambee Corp., C.A. No. 21-175-CFC-CJB (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2023) had three distinct parts.

The first was a basic prosecution bar:

[P]ersons . . . who have received access to Designated Material, shall not be engaged . . . in prosecution of patent applications on behalf of the Receiving Party . . . claiming tracking devices used in systems that monitor shipments, without prior approval to do so from the Producing Party.

The second allowed persons otherwise covered by the bar to advise on subjects other than the drafting crafting or amending of claims before the ...

View

Whence Defenses?

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 15, 2023
Motion to Dismiss

Even the dullest 1L can tell you that rule 12(b) sets the timing for motions to dismiss:

A motion asserting any of [the 12(b)] defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed.

However, pursuant to 12(h), the defenses listed in 12(b)(2)-12(b)(5) are not actually waived as long as you include them as an affirmative defense in your answer (12(b)(1) and (b)(6) have separate rules).

A party waives any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(2)–(5) by . . failing to either:(i) make it by motion under this rule; or include it in a responsive pleading or in an amendment allowed by Rule 15(a)(1) as a matter of course

So then, if these defenses aren't waived, when can you …

View

What Items and Documents Should You Bring to a Hearing as an Attorney? Here's a Checklist.

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 14, 2023
Trial Practice KB

Pictured: The poor associate, who writes the briefs, carts the boxes, and dutifully passes polite notes up as the partner mangles the argument
Pictured: The poor associate, who writes the briefs, carts the boxes, and dutifully passes polite notes up as the partner mangles the argument AI-Generated

One question I've seen from time to time is "what should we bring to the hearing?" Not "how should we prepare," but what physical stuff should litigators bring on the day of a hearing or oral argument?

I thought it would be useful to post a checklist—both for you, our readers, and so that I can send it around in response to future questions.

The checklist below should be considered ideas for what to bring. Practiced litigators undoubtedly already have their own systems, and every hearing is different. You should not bring everything below to every hearing. This list is instead meant as a last-minute, "I'm about to head out the door, is there anything else I should bring?" checklist to spark ideas.

Note that this is geared towards oral argument in patent cases in the District of Delaware, but much of it is applicable to other kinds of hearings ...

View

Chief Judge Connolly Borrows from Patent Law to Permit Consideration of Non-Infringing Alternatives in Copyright Case

Emily DiBenedetto, Feb. 13, 2023
Patent Non-Infringing Alternatives

AI-generated
AI-Generated

Our recent post on copyright claims concerning AI-generated images reminded me of another interesting copyright opinion from last month. In it, Judge Connolly applied a patent law damages principle to a copyright infringement case involving a computer program.

In patent cases, defendants may use evidence of non-infringing alternatives to attempt to reduce the damages calculation if their product is shown to infringe a valid patent. For example, plaintiffs may argue that they are due lost profit damages under the Panduit factors:

  1. Demand for the patented product,
  2. Absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes,
  3. The plaintiff possesses manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand, and
  4. The amount of profit plaintiff would have made.

Therefore, a defendant can lower a plaintiff’s …

View

Contention Amendment Denied Because Good Cause Is Measured from the Outset of the Litigation

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 13, 2023
Good Cause FRCP 16

Early case:
Early case: "No, we're not amending, why are you bugging us?" Late case: "Oh no! There was a deadline to amend?" Eric Rothermel, Unsplash

Rule 16 says that a schedule "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent." This rule comes up any time a party wants to do something after a deadline set in the scheduling order, which is one of the more common litigation issues.

Parties will often, for example, let the deadline to amend the pleadings pass by, only to later realize that they want to assert an inequitable conduct defense (defendants) or wrap in a related entity (plaintiffs).

Good cause requires diligence, and in practice parties often frame the diligence discussion …

View
Newer
Older

Archive