A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

If the Wikipedia photo is correct, it looks like the E.D. Wis. courthouse wins the interesting-exterior-lighting battle.
If the Wikipedia photo is correct, it looks like the E.D. Wis. courthouse wins the interesting-exterior-lighting battle. Chris Phan, CC BY 2.0

Yesterday, visiting Judge Barker granted a motion to transfer in MCP IP, LLC v. Velocity Outdoor Inc., C.A. No. 24-683-JCB (D. Del.). The Court's opinion is lengthy and thorough, and it looks like the kind of analysis that is going to be cited quite a bit in future transfer motions.

I won't summarize the whole opinion, but a couple of points stood out to me as worth noting for those who may face (or file) transfer motions in patent cases.

The case was filed in Delaware by a company headquartered in Wisconsin, against a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. The defendant moved to transfer the case to Wisconsin based (in part) on the fact that the accused products are manufactured there by a subsidiary of the defendant.

The Court applied the Third Circuit's Jumara factors, which—as we've observed in the past)—can be tough to apply consistently, and can tend to favor transfer in IP cases.

Plaintiff's Forum Preference - This is the factor that consistently favors plaintiff. As the Court here noted, different judges have given this factor differing amounts of weight depending on the defendant's connection to Delaware. Judge Barker decided to give it its full weight despite the fact that the plaintiff here had no connection to Delaware:

[T]he District of Delaware has given the plaintiff’s choice different weight in different cases. In some, it discounted the weight of the plaintiff’s choice where the plaintiff lacked any connection to the forum state. . . . In others, it reasoned that the plaintiff’s connection to the forum has no bearing on the factor. . . . To ensure that plaintiff’s choice of forum is not lightly disturbed and to avoid double counting factors, this court will assume that this factor remains paramount and is not dampened by plaintiff’s lack of connection to Delaware. Cf. Rampart, 2025 WL 227287, at *2 (“Many of the reasons for lessening the importance of a plaintiff ’s choice in forum are subsumed and given weight under [other] Jumara factors . . . .”). Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly against transfer.

MCP IP, LLC v. Velocity Outdoor Inc., C.A. No. 24-683-JCB, at 11 (D. Del. Aug. 19, 2025).

Here are notes from some of the more interesting Jumara factor analyses here:

Whether the Claim Arose Elsewhere - The Court declined to hold that a patent case like this arises everywhere the defendant sells infringing products. It noted that the products are ...

Confusing
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Judge Burke issued an oral order on Thursday in OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v. RE Secured Networks, LLC, C.A. No. 24-187-JLH-CJB (D. Del.) expressing frustration due to the parties' inadequate claim construction briefing, and the resulting "inefficient" Markman hearing.

The parties submitted their joint claim chart back in March, identifying seven groups of terms. For three of the seven groups, the patentee offered positions like "Needs no construction" or "Not indefinite." D.I. 78-1 at 2-6. Some of these term groups were a bit odd (including, for example, a group called "preambles," which addressed three separate preambles across six claims spanning three patents). Counted separately, the parties sought to construe more than the 10 terms …

I have no idea if the equipment at issue even uses dish antennas, but this one looks cool.
I have no idea if the equipment at issue even uses dish antennas, but this one looks cool. Stellan Johansson, Unsplash

On Thursday, visiting Judge Wolson issued an opinion in SmartSky Networks, LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation, LLC, C.A. No. 22-266-JDW (D. Del.) addressing several summary judgment motions, one of which sought to invalidate a claim of one of the asserted patents as indefinite.

The claim related to a communication system for in-flight wifi, and required that a base station for the equipment emit a radiation pattern that is "oriented toward a horizon." The defendant claimed that that language is indefinite, and the Court agreed:

Claim 1 of the ‘717 Patent requires a radiation pattern that …

Andrew E. Russell, CC BY 2.0

The protective order hearing last week was even more interesting than anticipated. We laid out the background our last post, but here are the basics:

In this patent action, the inventor of the patents-in-suit is also a principal of the plaintiff entity Rein Tech, as well as the prosecuting attorney, the testifying expert, and (likely) a fact witness. He's doing a lot here.

Because he is the principal and a competitive decision maker, and even though he is a testifying expert who apparently issued a report, the parties (more or less) agreed that he is precluded from seeing Attorneys' Eyes Only ("AEO") information under the protective order in the action.

Beyond that, the …

A very blurry picture of a claim from one of the asserted patents, highlighting roughly the text that the patentee seemed to seek summary judgment on.
A very blurry picture of a claim from one of the asserted patents, highlighting roughly the text that the patentee seemed to seek summary judgment on. RE47,031

It's common for parties to not dispute the presence of some portions of a patent claim in an accused product. For example, in a patent for a "computing device" with software meeting certain limitations, the defendant may not dispute that the presence of a "computing device"—but might vigorously dispute that the software it runs meets the remaining claim limitations.

In most patent cases, the presence of at least some portion of the claim limitations in the accused product is not disputed—and often, quite a few limitations are not disputed. But the parties regularly …

A patent figure. It has an indisputable date, a specific technical diagram, and a description. How much clearer can you get?
A patent figure. It has an indisputable date, a specific technical diagram, and a description. How much clearer can you get? U.S. Pat. No. 777,777 ("Hat-Clasp")

On Friday, Judge Williams resolved a case narrowing dispute in Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Execla Pharma Sciences, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1233-GBW (D. Del.).

The parties disputed the numerical limits for case narrowing. The Court adopted a proposed limit of 4 obviousness combinations per claim, with no more than eight combinations total, and 10 total prior art references. The patentee offered to narrow to 7 asserted claims.

The Court noted that the order was consistent with its precedent, in which it allowed no more than 10 claims, 10 prior art references, and 20 prior art arguments.

The Court also addressed what counts as a "reference." The patentee tried to limit the accused infringer so that every document counts as its own reference, even if the asserted obviousness combination is a prior art device, product, or system itself rather than the documents that describe that system.

The Court rejected that idea, and held that ...

"Just imagine this page holds one of the in-depth and fulsome post-grant review petitions we're totally going to file on these patents" Kelly Sikkema, Unsplash

I know some readers probably want an update on the protective order hearing. I expect that will be a hefty post of interest to all D. Del. litigants—but I need to get the transcript first. In the mean time, though, please enjoy this spare and jargon-filled post which is only going to be of interest to patent practitioners.

We've talked about pre-institution stays before, and how hard they are to achieve. What's even harder? A stay of patent litigation before a patent challenge has even been filed.

Chief Judge Connolly …

Plaintiff's principal with his towering pillar of hats
Plaintiff's principal with his towering pillar of hats AI-Generated, displayed with permission

If you happen to be in Wilmington, DE tomorrow—perhaps as a summer associate—and feel like attending an interesting hearing, it could be worth stopping by Judge Noreika's Courtroom 4A at 10am.

The hearing involves an alleged protective order violation by plaintiff Rein Tech and its principal. See Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Systems, LLC, C.A. No. 18-1683-MN, D.I. 170 (D. Del. May 16, 2025).

An Alleged Disclosure of AEO Information And an Alleged Prosecution Bar Violation

Rein Tech's principal apparently wears many hats. In addition to being the head of Rein Tech, he is also the named inventor on the asserted patents, the prosecuting attorney …

I couldn't find a real image of a border that is
I couldn't find a real image of a border that is "porous to the extent that it is decipherable" AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Even 10+ years after Alice, the standard for invalidity under § 101 feels inconsistent, and there is a lot of room for any two human beings (judges or otherwise) to look at the same patent and have different views. This is particularly true when you factor in the procedural hurdles, which ultimately give the Court a range of options on when to deal with a § 101 motion (e.g., before summary judgment, at summary judgment, or at trial/post trial).

So, when a D. Del. judge issues a § 101 decision, I often think it often …

An embodiment of the lens at issue—yes, this is a single claim
An embodiment of the lens at issue—yes, this is a single claim "element" U.S. Pat. No. 6,844,990

Judge Burke issued a fascinating invalidity decision yesterday in Immervision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1484-MN-CJB (D. Del.). It addresses an invalidity issue I had honestly never seen litigated—a "'single means' claim"—and, along the way, it addresses what a claim "element" is and when the "clear and convincing" standard applies to invalidity.

Basically, the whole thing is a page-turner for someone who deals with these issues, and well worth reading. I'll outline some of the most interesting points below.

"Single Means" Invalidity Is a Thing

The invention at issue is an optical lens. The opinion involves an independent claim …