A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

Judge Andrews Grants Motions in Limine Regarding Prior Proceedings and Total Revenues—Here's Why These Are Helpful Motions

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 16, 2022
Trial Practice Trial Procedure

"Sure our damages figure sounds big, but look how big this other number is!" AI-Generated, displayed with permission

This week, Judge Andrews issued an order on the six motions in limine that the parties filed in Sprint Communications Company, L.P. v. Mediacom Communications Corp., C.A. No. 17-1736-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2022).

The order is short and to the point, and doesn't identify what the MILs relate to. But if the docket shows that there are at least two MILs here worth mentioning, if only because they come up so often.

Prior Proceedings

The defendant first moved to exclude the outcomes of multiple prior cases, as well as pending cases against co-defendants. Plaintiff responded that the prior …

View

Two Thirds of Latest Round of Cases Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Rather Than Getting an Unknown Visiting Judge

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 14, 2022
Visiting Judges Congestion

"If we don't consent, which visiting judge do you think we'll get?" Hush Naidoo Jade Photography, Unsplash

We've talked before about Chief Judge Connolly's orders that allow parties to choose to either consent to a specific magistrate judge or to have the case assigned to a visiting judge.

Last month, the Court issued those orders in six patent cases. All of the orders followed the same pattern as last time, giving the choice between a specific magistrate judge or an unknown visiting judge:

ORAL ORDER: It is HEREBY ORDERED that on or before November 1, 2022, the parties shall either (1) submit to the Clerk of Court an executed Form AO 85 Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge, indicating their consent to have a United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and post-trial proceedings; or (2) file a joint letter indicating that all the parties do not consent to a referral of this action to a Magistrate Judge. The letter should not indicate which party or parties did not consent. If all the parties consent, the case will be referred to Magistrate Judge Burke. Because of the Court's caseload, if the parties do not consent, the Court intends to assign the case to a visiting judge from another district. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 10/18/2022.

These orders started last year, before Judge Stark's departure for the Federal Circuit. It makes sense that the Court is sticking with ...

View

A New Visiting Judge for D. Del. Patent Cases: Senior United States District Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the Eastern District of PA

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 14, 2022
Visiting Judges Congestion

Philadelphia
Dan Mall, Unsplash

I noticed a new visiting judge here in the District of Delaware this month: Senior United States District Judge Joel H. Slomsky of the Eastern District of PA.

To my knowledge, Judge Slomsky has not previously served as a visiting judge in the District of Delaware, other than signing one stipulation on an emergency basis back in 2010. It looks like Judge Slomsky took on four patent cases this month.

Welcome, Judge Slomsky!

View

Court Orders Three Mavexar-Related Plaintiffs to Produce Communications with Mavexar, Attorney Retention Agreements, Bank Account Statements, and Sworn Declarations Regarding Assets

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 10, 2022
Mavexar NPE

Uh-oh.
Uh-oh. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Shortly after today's hearing regarding compliance with Chief Judge Connolly's standing orders, the Court issued orders in each of the cases from the similar hearing last week, requiring production of a broad range of communications among the plaintiffs, Mavexar, and their attorneys.

The Court issued similar orders in each case, each setting forth the Court's concerns:

Whereas the testimony of witnesses and representations of counsel at the November 4, 2022 hearing give rise to concerns that include but are not limited to the accuracy of statements in filings made by [each plaintiff] with the Court and whether the real parties in interest are before the Court;

The Court then issued production of …

View

Standing Order Hearings: Court Questions Head of NPE LLC Who Is Married to Attorney at Mavexar

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 10, 2022
Mavexar Piercing the Corporate Veil

"This is how I'm going to explain to my wife why she should have an LLC that holds our company's patents." AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Chief Judge Connolly held another hearing today regarding compliance with his standing orders on litigation funding, this time exploring the relationship between NPE plaintiff Backertop Licensing LLC and MAVEXAR, the entity that is said to have created Backertop.

Last week's hearing involved testimony from a sales person and a restaurateur who owns a food truck, each of whom had been recruited by MAVEXAR to be the sole member of a patent assertion NPE, as an "investment" opportunity or a way to make "passive income."

Each "owner" received either 5% or 10% of the …

View

A Handy Transcript

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 9, 2022
Contentions KB

Bookmarks
Chiara F, Unsplash

I thought I'd share an old transcript that has come in handy a number of times since it issued back in 2013, where Judge Andrews made a helpful ruling about how and when patentees must respond to conception date interrogatories—an issue that comes up frequently.

In Vehicle Interface Techs., LLC v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, C.A. No. 12-1285-RGA (D. Del.), the defendant filed a discovery dispute to compel a full response to an interrogatory asking for the date of conception and reduction to practice.

The patentee had responded, but the answer was not very helpful. According to the discovery dispute letter:

[The patentee] stated that the sole inventor . . …
View

A Wild Hearing: Chief Judge Connolly Flips Over Rock, Finds Mavexar LLC Crawling Around, Controlling Patent Litigation and Giving Hapless Patent Owners Just 5-10%

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 4, 2022
FRCP 7.1 Litigation Funding

Under Rock
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Wow.

I flagged on Wednesday that Chief Judge Connolly planned to hold an evidentiary hearing today regarding compliance with his litigation funding and entity ownership orders in three cases. Well, I went, and it was one of the most remarkable hearings I've seen in a patent case.

The purpose of the hearing was to dig into whether the parties complied with Chief Judge Connolly's standing orders regarding litigation funding and entity ownership.

But the Court's statements at the hearing offered some insight into what motivated those orders in the first place: Chief Judge Connolly believes (as he has said before) that the District Court is not a "star chamber," and that the public has …

View

Disagreement With the Substance of Infringement Contentions Does Not Mean Those Contentions Are Inadequte—And Can't Be the Basis to Withhold Discovery

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 31, 2022
Motion to Strike MTC

"I'm a motion to strike, not a stealth motion for summary judgment" Braydon Anderson, Unsplash

One of the more common District of Delaware questions you get as local counsel is "can we move to strike opposing counsel's (infringement or invalidity) contentions?"

That may seem like a simple question, but the answer depends many things, like: What is wrong with those contentions? How were our contentions in comparison? Which judge is this in front of? How long ago did they serve them? (And, sometimes, things like: Why are you asking this now, when we are two weeks from trial?)

Challenging contention disclosures can be tough even if you have what seem like fairly good arguments. The Court is generally not …

View

Judge Noreika Transfers Trademark and False Advertising Case Out of Delaware. Are Patent Case Transfers Coming?

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 28, 2022
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Jumara

Artist's depiction of the <a href='#' class='abbreviation' data-bs-toggle='tooltip' data-placement='top' title='Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995)'>Jumara</a> factors in action
Artist's depiction of the Jumara factors in action Nick Fewings, Unsplash

Yesterday, Judge Noreika transferred a trademark, false advertising, false designation of origin, and unfair competition case to the Northern District of Illinois. See Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. EU Automation, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1162-MN (D. Del. Oct. 27, 2022).

This is interesting because, to my knowledge, Judge Noreika has transferred few if any patent cases out of the District of Delaware—including when both parties are have strong ties to the transferee forum.

I thought it would be interesting to see how the Jumara factors played out in this trademark case compared to …

View

A Narrow Doctrine

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 27, 2022
Privilege

Douglas Lopez, Unsplash

How, in the 8,000 year history of law, have we not come up with a better name than the "at issue" doctrine? I hesitate to call it the shame of our profession, but it's firmly in the running.

I pose some alternatives below. To make it clear, any highlighted words refer to the doctrine formerly known as "at issue." Feel free to use going forward -- creative commons or whatever.

This Will Go On For Longer Than You Think

Judge Burke had an interesting case regarding the sneaky peak doctrine. In Sensormatic Electronics, LLC v. Genetec (USA) Inc., the issue arose in the context of an inequitable conduct allegation, where defendants sought evidence about what exactly …

View
Newer
Older

Archive