A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

This Is Why You Should Identify Claim Construction Issues Early—If You Can

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 24, 2025

Claim construction in this case was originally set for 2020—before the parties stipulated to cancel it.
Claim construction in this case was originally set for 2020—before the parties stipulated to cancel it. Kelly Sikkema, Unsplash

Yesterday, Judge Hall granted a post-trial JMOL motion in Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., C.A. No. 19-2342-JLH (D. Del.), finding no infringement as a matter of law.

The motion resolved a relatively straightforward claim construction issue: what the word "purity" means in the claims.

The patentee said it meant chemical purity, while the accused infringer argued it meant "polymorphic" purity. The patent as a whole is directed towards crystal forms of a drug, and discussed purity of the crystal form—"polymorphic" purity—but also mentions chemical purity. The patenteee agreed that, if "purity" means polymorphic …

View

Court Grants Rule 12(c) Judgment on the Pleadings of No Contributory Infringement

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 13, 2025
FRCP 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Pills
HalGatewood.com, Unsplash

Defendants are always on the lookout for ways resolve patent cases (and other cases) early. One potential avenue is an FRCP 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings—but it only works in uncommon circumstance that the pleadings themselves show a lack of infringement or validity.

It's an uncommon circumstance—but not unheard of. Last week, the Court granted an FRCP 12(c) motion of no contributory infringement in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma. Inc. v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 23-685-CFC (D. Del.), after a plaintiff's own complaint showed a lack of infringement.

Boehringer is an ANDA action. The patent claims a drug used to treat a disease in patients who—critically—are ineligible to receive a second drug. The label …

View

Something to Consider When Considering a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss a Patent Case

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 8, 2025
MTD FRCP 12(b)(6)

Robot
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Back in 2021 the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am. that raised the standard for granting a motion to dismiss in a patent action. C.A. No. 2020-2218, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20624 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021). The Federal Circuit held that "[a] plaintiff is not required to plead infringement on an element-by-element basis"—which was news to the patent practitioners who had filed (and won) motions on that basis.

We haven't written much about that decision in the time since, but it's still out there, and it's something to keep in mind as you weigh your options in response to a patent infringement complaint.

Last month, during our …

View

Ruling on Post-Trial Motions Shows What Not to Do

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 6, 2025
Trial Trial Practice

Snow day!
Snow day! Hide Obara, Unsplash

We're back! Just in time to be snowed in—the Court is closed today due to inclement weather.

While we were out last week, Chief Judge Connolly issued an interesting opinion on post-trial motions in Natera, Inc. v. CareDX, Inc., C.A. No. 20-38-CJB (D. Del.).

That case went to trial in January 2024, with plaintiff Natera winning a $96 million verdict on the first of two patents, but receiving a verdict of no infringement of the second patent. The Court's opinion addresses their motion for JMOL of infringement on the second patent.

Did a Poorly Phrased Question Doom JMOL of Infringement?

The arguments turned on a single claim limitation. The Court found …

View

Court Holds Claim Indefinite Where One of Two Claimed Ways to Infringe Is Scientifically Impossible

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 16, 2024
Indefiniteness Claim Construction

An electric signal transmitted over the air?
An electric signal transmitted over the air? Brandon Morgan, Unsplash

Judge Burke issued an interesting claim construction opinion on Thursday of last week, invalidating a claim where one of two ways to infringe was scientifically impossible.

One claim limitation was set forth in the alternative:

A communications apparatus for transmitting electric or electromagnetic signals over air

Satius Holding, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 18-850-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2024).

The parties agreed the it is "scientifically possible" to transmit "electromagnetic signals" over air, but the defendant argued that it was impossible to transmit "electric" signals over the air:

Defendants assert that one of those two options—“transmitting electric . . . signals over air”—amounts …
View

Patentee's Own Weak Interrogatory Responses Cause Denial of Its Motion to Strike Opposing Party's Late Expert Argument

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 11, 2024
Expert Discovery Expert Reports

"Behold, our fulsome and complete damages theory disclosure. I'm sure this won't cause us any problems down the line." Andy Bridge, Unsplash

Parties in patent cases are often tempted to provide bare-bones responses to contention interrogatories, offering just enough to preserve their ability to expand on the arguments later during expert reports. That's easier, obviously, than providing more detailed contentions, and it also maintains flexibility as discovery develops.

Plus, parties simply may not have fully developed their theories at the time contention interrogatories are due. Expert reports are when theories are typically fully fleshed out, after discovery has closed and the universe of information is set, more or less.

But there is another consideration as well, beyond preventing a …

View

Whoops! "Good Faith" Belief in Opposing Party's Breach of Settlement Agreement Insufficient to Permit New Patent Suit

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 4, 2024
Breach of Contract Settlement Agreements

This suit did not go as planned.
This suit did not go as planned. Kyriacos Georgiou, Unsplash

Judge Andrews issued an interesting opinion on opposing summary judgment motions yesterday in Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 19-2216-RGA (D. Del.).

The parties settled a patent infringement suit years ago in a way that permitted the defendant to nonetheless launch its drug product if the patent claims were asserted against a third party and found invalid or not infringed.

Some of the claims were asserted against a third party and held invalid or not infringed, and the defendant launched. The plaintiff disagreed that this permitted launch. It sued the defendant for breach of contract and, critically, for patent infringement.

Last year, …

View

Court Declines to Strike § 282 Notice Disclosing Nearly 200 Prior Art References, Despite Stipulated Narrowing

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 2, 2024
§ 282 Case Narrowing

Some home-cooked stuffing. Apparently the photo in our Thanksgiving post was uncooked stuffing.
Some home-cooked stuffing. Apparently the photo in our Thanksgiving post was uncooked stuffing. Andrew E. Russell, displayed with permission

We're back! I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. As we'd hoped, the Court issued some interesting decisions last week, including a denial of a motion to strike in Lindis Biotech, GmbH v. Amgen, Inc., C.A. No. 22-35-GBW (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2024).

In that case, the parties had agreed to a case narrowing schedule that required the accused infringer to cut back to 6 prior art references per patent by 14 days before the pretrial order, not including references used to show the state of the art, the knowledge of one skilled in the art, …

View

Court Denies Lower-Ranked SJ Motions After Denial-in-Part

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 22, 2024
Ranking Summary Judgment

Dominoes
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Both Chief Judge Connolly and Judge Williams require parties to rank their summary judgment motions. This is an effort to deter meritless summary judgment motions. Upon denying a higher-ranked motion, the Court will automatically deny lower-ranked motions as well.

In other words: You had better be careful when ranking your summary judgment motions. But it can be tricky! Do you put the one with the highest chance of success first, even if it's on an issue you don't care as much about? Or do you rank the tougher SJ motion first because it addresses a critical issue first, to ensure that the Court will at least address it?

And what if a motion is granted, but …

View

Court Denies Stay Pending Instituted IPR

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 20, 2024

"Loco-Crazy Good Cookers, Inc." wins IP/DE's 2024 Best Company Name Ever award. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Parties sometimes think that a stay pending an instituted IPR is almost a given. But while a stay is more likely than not, it's not a sure thing.

Last month we saw a even a stipulated stay pending IPR denied by visiting Judge Choe-Groves (in the time since, by the way, that denial has held firm, and the Court issued a scheduling order).

This week Judge Fallon denied a stay pending an instituted IPR in North Atlantic Imports, LLC v. Loco-Crazy Good Cookers, Inc., C.A. No. 23-999-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Nov. 19, 2024). The Court noted that there were non-patent claims …

View
Older

Archive