A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

Defendant's Own Importation Cannot Serve as the Basis for an Inducement Claim

Andrew E. Russell, April 22, 2022
Importation Motion to Amend

Monkey inducing itself to infringe
Andre Mouton, Unsplash

In rejecting a motion to amend a complaint almost two weeks ago (while we were indisposed), Judge Andrews held that a defendant's own importation under 35 USC 271(g) cannot serve as a basis for induced infringement:

Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to assert induced infringement is futile, because Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege any of the three elements required for a claim of induced infringement – direct infringement, knowledge, and specific intent. . . . I find that because Plaintiffs have not alleged any acts of direct infringement by a third party in the United States, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim of induced infringement under § 271(b). . . . Plaintiffs’ argument that their …
View

Judge Andrews: 25-Reference Obviousness Analysis Without Specific Combinations Is Not a Daubert Problem

Andrew E. Russell, April 20, 2022
Expert Witness Obviousness

"Pick a card, any card . . . that's our secondary obviousness reference." Aditya Chinchure, Unsplash

Judge Andrews issued a short memorandum order today denying two Daubert motions based on an obviousness analysis where an expert identified a main reference and 24 additional references, without listing specific combinations.

The analysis apparently sorted the prior art into categories:

The main point of both motions is the assertion that Dr. Lepore has not identified specific combinations of prior art for his obviousness analysis. Defendants have referred to a portion of Dr. Lepore’s report where he lists categories of references. . . . [T]he expert has one reference as the “lead compound.” The expert has three additional categories of references: (1) four that show “c-Met’s role in various Cancers,” (2) six references “related to selecting a lead compound,” and (3) fourteen references “related to modifying the lead compound.”

As the Court explained, a usual case may involve a multiple-reference "state of the art" or motivation to combine analysis, so this is not a Daubert issue:

My view is that, in the usual case, an obviousness combination requires the identification of two or sometimes three references that disclose the requisite claim elements, and (usually) additional references, which can be ...
View

Judge Connolly Issues New Standing Orders, Including Requirement to Disclose Litigation Funding

Andrew E. Russell, April 18, 2022
Standing ANDA

Standing Stones
Andreas Brunn, Unsplash

Today, Judge Connolly issued four new standing orders. These orders include:

  1. A requirement to disclose third-party litigation funding arrangements on the docket;
  2. A requirement in diversity cases to disclose the name and citizenship of every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest in every party;
  3. An order expanding disclosure requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 for non-governmental joint ventures, LLCs, partnerships, and LLPs;
  4. A requirement for the defendant in ANDA cases where there was a Paragraph IV certification to produce the ANDA when responding to the complaint;

The above are numbered only for reference below.

Each of these orders explicitly applies only in Chief Judge Connolly cases.

Order 1: Litigation …

View

Here's What Has Changed in Judge Burke's New Form Scheduling Order

Andrew E. Russell, March 23, 2022
Concise Statement of Facts Case Narrowing

New
Nick Fewings, Unsplash

Yesterday, Magistrate Judge Burke released a new form scheduling order. There are redlines embedded below.

Here is a quick rundown of some of the changes in the patent scheduling order:

  • Added from Judge Andrews' scheduling order:
    • A requirement for plaintiffs to provide licenses and settlement agreements as part of their disclosures
    • A prompt in the scheduling order for the parties to consider a staged reduction of asserted claims and prior art, before and after claim construction (this comes up a lot)
  • Added from Judges Connolly, Noreika, and/or Hall's scheduling orders:
    • A requirement to include chart at the end listing the deadlines all together (convenient!)
    • A Concise Statement of Facts requirement for summary judgment
    • He …
View

Last-Second Claim Construction Argument, Offered at Hearing, Saves Patent from § 101 Motion to Dismiss

Andrew E. Russell, March 22, 2022
MTD § 101

Plaintiff Trident Holdings, LLC at oral argument, pointing to a claim construction
Kedar Gadge, Unsplash

Having a legitimate claim construction dispute that would lead to subject matter eligibility is a great way to survive a § 101 motion. Ideally, obviously, that argument should be set forth in an answering brief. But an opinion yesterday describes how a patentee was able to avoid a negative result on its § 101 motion through claim construction arguments offered at oral argument:

[Plaintiff] Trident suggested for the first time at oral argument that the “optimization engine” and “adaptive scoring” limitations required construction before the Court decides eligibility. . . . That claim construction wasn’t expressly raised until the oral argument suggests that [Trident] may not have actually thought there was a claim construction issue …
View

Always Leave the Court Enough Time Between SJ/Daubert Briefing and the Pretrial Conference

Andrew E. Russell, March 21, 2022
Stipulation KB

Caution Tape
Hiroshi Kimura, Unsplash

A reader helpfully flagged a stipulation denial by Judge Noreika last week (thank you!). The parties had a pretrial conference scheduled for July 18, 2022, and stipulated to move a number of deadlines, including for Daubert briefing. They moved the Daubert motion reply deadline from May 20, 2022 (52 days before the PTC) to June 10, 2022 (38 days before the PTC).

Judge Noreika denied the stipulation without comment. They smartly refiled, but without the Daubert deadline adjustment. This time it went through just fine, albeit with a comment stating that the Daubert deadlines were not moving:

SO ORDERED re 192 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME . . . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Daubert motion/briefing schedule set by D.I. 134 shall NOT be extended ...
View

Judge Burke Declines to Find Non-Infringement in Daubert Context; Gives Thoughts on Proliferation of Summary Judgment Motions

Andrew E. Russell, March 15, 2022
Summary Judgment Non-Infringement

These dandelions are popping up like SJ motions!
These dandelions are popping up like SJ motions! Jonne Huotari, Unsplash

Today, in Personal Audio v. Google, C.A. No. 17-1751-CFC-CJB (D. Del.), Judge Burke addressed an apparent request for the Court to find non-infringement based on a claim construction issue, which came up for the first time in the context of a Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony.

The Court expressed some initial sympathy for the non-infringement argument, suggesting it may have had some merit:

[T]he Court notes more generally that the issue underlying Defendant’s Motion is Defendant’s assertion that the claim construction for “sequencing file,” . . . requires that “you can’t use a copy of the sequencing file to control playback and respon[d] to …
View

What Does It Take for "Unclean Hands" and "Prosecution Laches" Affirmative Defenses to Actually Survive a Motion to Strike?

Andrew E. Russell, March 14, 2022
Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

These hands actually look pretty clean.
These hands actually look pretty clean. Nathan Dumlao, Unsplash

Defendants in patent cases often seem to throw in somewhat obscure affirmative defenses with little or no factual support. "Unclean hands" is a classic example. Defendants will sometimes seem to include defenses like unclean hands and prosecution latches with no real factual support (and, I suspect, not always the best grasp on what those defenses really mean).

Judge Stark issued an opinion today on a motion to strike "unclean hands" and "prosecution laches" defenses offers an example of what happens when a defendant actually does adequately support these defenses.

First, the standard: to succeed on a motion to strike affirmative defenses, the insufficiency must be "clearly apparent":

"[P]ursuant to Rule …
View

Stay Motion Denial Results in Guidance for the Parties—and for the PTAB

Andrew E. Russell, March 9, 2022
Motion to Stay IPR

Stay!
Stay! Taylor Kopel, Unsplash

Pre-institution stays can be tough to achieve, but they are sometimes granted. Even when denied, though, a pre-institution stay may have other benefits, including that the Court may be willing to offer guidance on what to do—and what may happen—if the IPR is instituted.

An order from Magistrate Judge Burke on Friday is a good example. In eBuddy Technologies B.V. v. LinkedIn Corporation, C.A. No. 20-1501-RGA-CJB (D. Del.), the defendant moved for a pre-institution stay pending IPR. Judge Buke denied it:

ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion to stay the case pending resolution of [un-instituted] inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings . . . , hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew in light of the following: (1) For reasons it has previously expressed, the Court is not typically inclined to grant a stay in favor of IPR proceedings when a case has been moving forward for a while and when the PTAB has not yet determined whether to initiate review of any of the patents-in-suit. . . . .; (2) That outcome seems particularly ...
View

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
Newer
Older

Archive