A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


DED
United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Court Declines to Hold Defendant to Claim Construction Position Taken in Uninstituted IPR Petition Absent Bad Faith

Andrew E. Russell, May 21, 2021
Judicial Estoppel IPR

Yesterday, Chief Judge Stark addressed whether "judicial estoppel" prevents a defendant from taking one position in an uninstituted IPR petition and asserting a contradictory position during claim construction in the district court:

[Plaintiff] Sequoia contends that [defendant] Red Hat is judicially estopped from arguing for a narrower construction than it proposed during the IPR . . . . Judicial estoppel is only appropriate when: (1) the party to be estopped is asserting a position that is irreconcilably inconsistent with one she previously asserted; (2) the party changed her position in bad faith, i.e., with an intent to play fast and loose with the court, and (3) the use of judicial estoppel is tailored to address the affront to the …
View

Four+ Page Long Notice of Subsequent Authority Proves Effective

Andrew E. Russell, May 20, 2021
LR 7.1.2 Supplemental Pleading

In Delaware, Local Rule 7.1.2(b) sets deadlines for responding to motions, and states that

Except for the citation of subsequent authorities, no additional papers [other than the opening, answering, and reply briefs] shall be filed absent Court approval.

Based on this rule, parties file "notices of subsequent authorities" to present after-arising citations (and sometimes other content) to the Court.

But some attorneys disagree about just how much argument can accompany the "citation[s]" a notice of subsequent authority. The authority is mixed.

In some cases, the Court has declined to consider notices containing argument that are filed without leave. See, e.g., Forest Labs., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC, C.A. No. 14-508-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23215, at *51 …

View

You Won a Default Judgment? Congratulations! Now File Your Settlement Agreements.

David M. Fry, May 19, 2021
Damages Settlement Agreements

Checkered Flag
Bas van den Eijkhof, Unsplash

Default judgments are uncommon in Delaware patent cases. In the rare instance where a defendant misses an answer deadline, the issue is typically resolved with minimal court intervention, either because the plaintiff agrees to an extension or the court sets aside the entry of default.

But in a recent case against Aston Martin, LLC (brought by Display Technologies, LLC), it appears that a default judgment might actually be moving forward. (Side note: it isn't clear to us whether the correct legal entity was sued or served, and we take no position on that front.)

The complaint was filed in February 2020, the summons was served in May, and the clerk entered a default in July. The plaintiff eventually moved for a default judgment in December, seeking an award of $75,000 to $1 million (based on damages estimates from a client affidavit).

On Monday, Judge Andrews recognized that it would "be necessary to have a hearing in order to determine the amount of damages[,]" but made clear that he wasn't going to take the plaintiff's word for the damages number ...

View

Willfulness Evidence Comes In During Liability Phase, Rules Chief Judge Stark

Jeff Castellano, May 18, 2021
Willfulness Damages

In a recent order, Judge Stark ruled that evidence of willfulness would come in during the liability phase of a jury trial in which liability and damages are being tried separately. The ruling was one of several issued in the lead up to the June jury trial in Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC, C.A. No. 17-1390-LPS.

In his ruling, Judge Stark noted that "[t]he Court's interest in conservation of resources disfavors Defendants' request,"...

View

Judge Noreika Points Out Nuance in O2 Micro, Declines to Construe Term

Andrew E. Russell, May 17, 2021
O2 Micro Plain Meaning

The Federal Circuit's 2008 decision in O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) comes up frequently in patent cases. Its holding is sometimes shorthanded as "you can't argue claim construction to the jury" or "the Court must construe claim limitations if they are disputed."

Judge Noreika rejected one such shorthanding of the O2 Micro rule today, pointing out that the actual O2 Micro ruling is more nuanced than parties sometimes think:

Defendant asserts that “when parties dispute a term appearing in the body of the claims, it must be construed.” (D.I. 90 at 2 (citing O2 Micro . . . )). That statement of law is incorrect. Rather, the Federal …
View

Does Filing an Amended Complaint Moot Your Preliminary Injunction Motion?

Andrew E. Russell, May 14, 2021
Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction

david-clode-PMyak6AHT1Y-unsplash.jpg
David Clode, Unsplash

In Reputation.com, Inc. v. Birdeye, Inc., C.A. No. 21-129-LPS (D. Del.), the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction.

Judge Stark referred the PI motion to Judge Burke, who held an initial status conference and set a truncated schedule for PI discovery. The scheduling order set deadlines for PI discovery and supplemental briefing to be completed within 4 months.

Shortly after the PI motion, defendant moved to dismiss on § 101 grounds; in response, the plaintiff amended the complaint.

After the amendment, the Court issued an oral order sua sponte denying the motion to dismiss as moot—a common practice among some D. Del. judges (these orders helpfully make explicit that the pending motion …

View

Correction: Judge Connolly Does NOT Permit Formal Argument on Indefiniteness at Markman

Andrew E. Russell, May 13, 2021
Corrections IPDE

Last month, we took a look at how the different judges handle indefiniteness at Markman, a question that comes up a lot.

We reported that every judge will hear argument about indefiniteness issues at Markman. But in the Judge Connolly specific section, we noted that he has never held a term indefinite in a Markman opinion, and has instead deferred ruling on the issue until summary judgment (citing two examples). See the full post for details.

Yesterday, at a hearing, Judge Connolly mentioned a blog post and stated that the post was incorrect in suggesting that he considers indefiniteness at Markman. He clarified that he does not permit indefiniteness argument at Markman. Instead, he might entertain early …

View

Can You Depose Claim Construction Experts in Delaware?

David M. Fry, May 12, 2021
Claim Construction

By and large, the view from the bench is that expert testimony provides little value in the claim construction process. It's litigation-driven extrinsic evidence, and it often plays no role in the court's final analysis. But if you choose to rely on an expert during claim construction, will you have to make them available for deposition?

Judge Stark answered this question on Friday with a resounding yes. After reiterating the general view that "[e]xpert opinions and declarations constitute extrinsic evidence . . . and are at times unhelpful," he confirmed that:

a party asking the Court to rely on such extrinsic evidence should expect to make its expert(s) available for deposition prior to a claim construction hearing, should …
View

Judge Connolly Tosses Damages Opinion Based on CEO's Testimony

Jeff Castellano, May 11, 2021
Damages Lanham Act

In a recent Daubert ruling in CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., C.A. No. 19-662-CFC-CJB, Judge Connolly excluded the opinion of the plaintiff's expert regarding "corrective advertising damages," in part because it was based on "vague, undocumented, and back-of-the-envelope . . . estimates" by the plaintiff's CEO. The Judge granted the defendant's motion to exclude the expert's testimony under both Rule 702 and Rule 403, indicating that not only did the expert's opinion fail to satisfy the Daubert hallmarks for admissible expert testimony, it would also confuse the jury and be prejudicial because it "would essentially place the imprimatur of an expert on [the CEO] Maag's undocumented and dubious damages calculation."

View

Judge Andrews Rejects Theory that Prior Expert Testimony Was a Party Admission

Andrew E. Russell, May 10, 2021
Motion in Limine MIL

Last week, Judge Andrews addressed a serious of motions in limine in Astrazeneca AB v. Zydus Pharms. (USA) Inc., C.A. No. 18-664-RGA (D. Del.). These rulings are often interesting; here, Judge Andrews excluded some former expert testimony as hearsay, rejecting the idea that the testimony was a party admission:

Defendant seeks to exclude testimony and evidence that relate to positions it and its experts took in relation to the patent-in-suit (as prior art) in District of New Jersey litigation involving other patents. . . . The evidence, which is described as trial transcripts, expert reports, invalidity contentions, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and “support documents” (consisting altogether of about fourteen proposed exhibits) is …
View
Newer
Older

Archive