A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


DED
United States District Court for the District of Delaware

What Are Technology Tutorials in Patent Cases, and Are They Worth It?

Andrew E. Russell, March 2, 2022
Technology Tutorial Summary Judgment

Looks like they went with the low-cost version
Looks like they went with the low-cost version Markus Winkler, Unsplash

In the District of Delaware, five of our eight judges use form scheduling orders that provide a deadline for the submission of a "Technology Tutorial" around the time of claim construction.

Former Judge Stark required the parties to submit a tech tutorial in patent cases with the opening claim construction brief. Judge Stark's form order, for example, provided that:

Tutorial Describing the Technology and Matters in Issue. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties shall provide the Court, no later than the date on which their opening claim construction briefs are due, a tutorial on the technology at issue. In that regard, the parties may separately …
View

Judge Fallon: No New § 101 Theories After Ineligibility Determination Reversed by Federal Circuit

Andrew E. Russell, March 1, 2022
JMOL FRCP 50(a)

Disappointment Ice Cream
Sarah Kilian, Unsplash

Back in 2019, the parties in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., C.A. 15-218-JFB-SRF (D. Del.) went to trial on infringement claims for a patent involving a "means of identification" of certain medical devices.

During trial, at the close of plaintiffs' case, visiting Judge Bataillon granted an oral FRCP 50(a) motion for JMOL for the defendant (wow!), finding that the patent was ineligible as directed to an abstract idea involving labeling and printed matter.

The Federal Circuit later reversed, holding that the claims were patent eligible. Defendant then sought rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel's determination that the claims were patent eligible would cut off its ability to present other ineligibility arguments …

View

Delaware State and Federal Courts Lift Mask Mandates

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 28, 2022
DED COVID-19

Masks
Afif Kusuma, Unsplash

Effective today, the District of Delaware lifted its mask mandate for public areas:

NOW THEREFORE, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Effective immediately, masking in public areas of the Court (lobby, corridors, elevators, restrooms, etc.) is no longer required. People may choose to wear a face mask at their discretion. Prior standing orders of the Court that imposed mask requirements are VACATED to the extent, and only to the extent, such orders imposed mask requirements.
2. Judges retain the discretion to impose mask requirements in their courtrooms as they see fit.

Delaware state courts are likewise ending their mask mandate, starting on Wednesday of this week.

In a message to the bar, Delaware Supreme Court Chief …

View

Chief Judge Connolly Bifurcates Patent Trial: Infringement First, then Invalidity, Damages, and Willfulness

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 26, 2022
Trial Trial Procedure

Bifurcated Cake
Henry Be, Unsplash

Bifurcation into liability and damages phases used to be common, with former Judge Robinson often splitting liability and damages, at one point saying that “bifurcation is appropriate, if not necessary, in all but exceptional patent cases.” Dutch Branch of Streamserve Dev. AB v. Exstream Software, LLC, C.A. No. 08-343-SLR, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76006, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2009).

These days, bifurcation still happens here, but it is a bit less common than it was back then.

Earlier this month, though, Chief Judge Connolly raised bifurcation in a way I hadn't heard of, suggesting that the parties split infringement from invalidity and other issues, with jury deliberations in between:

At …
View

Another Bite at the Apple

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 24, 2022
Objections to R&Rs

Apple with a bite
Dainis Graveris, Unsplash

Referring a motion to a magistrate, as Chief Judge Connolly recently noted, often fails to result in the efficiency gains one might expect, because it "inevitably results in objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation which the district court judge must review de novo." Fundamental Innovation Systems Int. LLC v. Lenovo (U.S.), Inc., C.A. No. 20-551-CFC, D.I. 68 (D. Del. Nov. 23, 2021) (referring to SJ motions).

This led me to wonder if objections to report and recommendations should be so common, i.e., do they have any real chance at success? Analyzing the results for objections to R&R's filed in Delaware patent cases in 2021, seems to show that they …

View

Another Judge Stark Reassignment Pending His Departure

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 24, 2022
Congestion Judicial Vacancies

Fork in the Road
Jens Lelie, Unsplash

Ever since Judge Stark was confirmed to the Federal Circuit, one of the most common questions I've received is: what will happen to his current cases, and when will we know?

There have already been some reassignments to visiting judges, but few clear indications of what may happen in the bulk of Judge Stark's current cases. We got some more hints yesterday in this oral order from Judge Stark:

ORAL ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case will be reassigned to another judge and the pretrial conference (currently scheduled for March 24) and jury trial (currently scheduled for April 6) will be rescheduled by that judge. Accordingly, the current pretrial conference and trial dates are …
View

Likelihood of Stay Pending IPR in W.D. Texas vs. Delaware

Emily DiBenedetto, Feb. 23, 2022
IPR Stay

Today, we analyze the District of Delaware's propensity to grant stays pending IPR decisions, as compared to the Western District of Texas. Here are the big takeaways:

  • Prior to IPR institution, motions to stay are almost always denied in D. Del.;
  • Judge Albright of W.D. Tex. has denied 40% of motions (i.e. two motions) to stay pending instituted IPRs, but there is not much data available yet;
  • D. Del. has denied about 28% of motions (i.e. 16 out of 58) to stay pending instituted IPRs in the last four years;
  • D. Del. receives far more motions to stay pending IPR than W.D. Tex., and grants them just over half the time (~60% in the last 4 years, …
View

Chief Judge Connolly Limits Parties to 10 Claim Terms (Or, Why It's Helpful to Pay Attention to Seemingly-Obscure Precedent)

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 23, 2022
10 Terms Stipulation

As frequent readers of this blog already know, some judges in Delaware have limited parties to a total of 10 terms for construction across all asserted patents.

We've noted at least one previous instance where Chief Judge Connolly seemed to limit the parties to 10 claim construction disputes. Last week, the Court made an even clearer statement on the issue.

The parties in MG FreeSites Ltd v. ScorpCast, LLC, C.A. No. 20-1012-CFC-JLH (D. Del.) filed their joint claim chart in advance of claim construction, and listed 15 terms in dispute. They also included a footnote smartly noting Chief Judge Connolly's practice not to permit argument on indefiniteness at the claim construction stage.

They then filed a stipulation …

View

Court Criticizes Plaintiffs' "Heading-Scratching Decision" to Meet and Confer Only One Hour Before Deadline, Sua Sponte Strikes Part of Status Report

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 22, 2022
Joint Status Report Sua Sponte

Clock
Tristan Colangelo, Unsplash

The District of Delaware sometimes requires the parties to file joint status reports, usually either at dates set in the scheduling order (e.g. an "interim status report") or following developments in the case that require more information, like a stipulated stay that has expired, or after a communication from the parties regarding a development in the case.

Typically, by convention, plaintiff handles the initial draft of these reports—but not always. Either way, one side will send a draft, and the other side will prove its position, sometimes reflexively opposing whatever is in the initial draft. The final report will often be split, with "Plaintiff's position" and "Defendant's position," although sometimes the parties will agree to a …

View

Giving Away the Crown Jewels

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 17, 2022
Default Standard Source Code

Computer Screen
Arget, Unsplash

As we must have discussed in one of the prior 238,000,000 entries (estimated) on this blog, the Default Standard for Discovery requires an accused infringer to produce it's "core technical documents" early in the case (60 days after the scheduling conference), to allow the patentee to prepare its infringement contentions. This leads to the question of what exactly constitutes a "core technical document?" and, in particular, is source code a "core technical document"?

This question has gone largely unaddressed in the years since the Default Standard was adopted [editor's note: with at least one exception back in 2012]. This week, however, Judge Stark gave us a parting gift of a bit of clarity, holding that …

View
Newer
Older

Archive