A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

Thoughts On the Mavexar "Mansplaining Brief," Which Accuses the Court of "Gender Harassment and Intimidation"

Andrew E. Russell, June 12, 2023
Mavexar Reconsideration

"Sure, I had my LLC sue a bunch of people in Delaware, but I didn't think the Court would actually make me GO there." Andrew Russell, CC BY 2.0

I guess our post about the Mavexar hearing last week was remiss in failing to talk about the "mansplaining brief." I've had a couple of people ask me about it. Here is the background and some quick thoughts.

Chief Judge Connolly Orders Mavexar-LLC's Sole Member to Testify In Person

The short version of the leadup: Mavexar is an entity that creates LLCs to assert patents against tech companies for quick settlements, often in Delaware. The LLCs take all of the risk, and Mavexar keeps 90-95% of the profits while hiding its …

View

Court Rejects Mavexar Attorneys' Motions to Withdraw, Grills Them on Efforts to Hide Mavexar from Court

Andrew E. Russell, June 8, 2023
Mavexar

Backertop's—or Mavexar's—Two Attorneys
Backertop's—or Mavexar's—Two Attorneys AI Generated

The Court held a lengthy hearing in the Backertop cases today. These are Mavexar-related actions and, if you recall, they involve a Mavexar attorney and his wife, who he appointed as the sole member of a Mavexar patent assertion entity.

How a Patent Assertion Entity is Born

Some of the Court's questions focused on exactly what Mavexar does, and confirmed that they operate basically as set out in the earlier hearings.

Here, from the lawyer's perspective, Mavexar attorneys reached out and said that Mavexar wanted to start several litigation campaigns, and asked whether the attorney was interested. They said that they would figure out what entity would actually assert the patents later.

In …

View

Judge Andrews Cancels Markman, "Dismisses" the Parties' Briefing After Parties Seek Construction of 16 Claim Terms

Andrew E. Russell, June 5, 2023
10 Terms Claim Construction

"We didn't need that joint brief anyway ... (sob)" Jeff Kingma, Unsplash

Judge Andrews issued an interesting order on Friday. Based on the docket, it looks like the parties had fully completed the Markman process (disclosures, meet-and-confer, joint claim chart, and joint brief), and had briefed a total of 16 terms. Judge Andrews then canceled the Markman and "dismissed" the briefing:

ORAL ORDER: The parties have submitted a joint claim construction with the request that I construe at least 16 terms including, for example, comprising and patient. I think that if I postpone the Markman hearing, some of these disputes may fall away. Therefore, the Markman hearing scheduled for June 23 is cancelled. The Markman briefing is dismissed. The …
View

In Forcing Witness to Attend Hearing in Mavexar-Related Case, Chief Judge Connolly Sets Out His Views on Post-COVID Remote Hearings

Andrew E. Russell, May 31, 2023
Mavexar COVID-19

TV
Possessed Photography, Unsplash

Chief Judge Connolly issued a memorandum order in the Backertop case today. We talked previously about how the plaintiff in Backertop is an LLC whose sole member is a paralegal who is married to an attorney who works at Mavexar, who gets just 5% of the proceeds of litigating the patents owned by the LLC (the rest goes to Mavexar).

Following a hearing last year, the Court ordered production of various documents, and ordered the owner of the LLC to appear again for a hearing on June 8. She asked to attend remotely due to other obligations.

Today, Chief Judge Connolly denied her request, but rescheduled her appearance for July (the June 8 hearing will still …

View

Reminder: File Too Many SJ Motions with Judge Noreika, and You May Have to Rank Them—And Likely Lose Some

Andrew E. Russell, May 26, 2023
Summary Judgment FRCP 56

Stick Figure Bonk

We talked early last year about how Judge Noreika praised Chief Judge Connolly SJ ranking procedures, and applied them in a case where the parties had filed 11 SJ motions.

As a reminder, under Chief Judge Connolly's procedures, the parties rank their SJ and Daubert motions. The Court addresses them in order, and if it denies one, it then denies the remainder.

Needless to say, it can lead to some significant strategizing prior to filing, where parties try to balance the importance of each motion with its likelihood of success.

This week, Judge Noreika did it again, and I thought it was a good time to remind everyone that this can happen. In VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. …

View

Court Rejects "Unprecedented" Request to Modify Judgment Based on Amended ANDA

Andrew E. Russell, May 19, 2023
ANDA FRCP 60

Undo Button
Sergi Kabrera, Unsplash

On Wednesday, Judge Andrews issued an order in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 20-430-RGA (D. Del. May 17, 2023) rejecting an attempt to evade judgment in an ANDA action based on the filing of an amended ANDA.

The defendant in the case had won on one method of treatment, and lost on the other. It filed an amended ANDA seeking to remove the infringing treatment from the label:

Defendant filed an ANDA seeking to make and market a drug for two different methods of treatment-the IBS-D indication and the HE indication. I had a bench trial. After trial, I ruled in Defendant's favor on the IBS-D indication (as …
View

No Pendent Venue for Patent Claims

Andrew E. Russell, May 17, 2023
Venue Transfer

Visualization of pendent venue
Visualization of pendent venue Chris Linnett, Unsplash

Today Chief Judge Connolly addressed a motion to dismiss a combined trade dress, federal unfair competition, copyright infringement, and design patent infringement action.

The parties apparently agreed that the defendant in the action did not meet the TC Heartland venue test for the patent portion of the action:

Argento is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New York. . . . It is undisputed that Argento does not own, rent, or maintain any offices, physical property, addresses, or bank accounts in Delaware and does not employ any Delaware-based employees, agents, or representatives. It is also undisputed that venue of Globefill's patent claim against Argento does not lie …
View

Judge Williams Is Not Kidding When It Comes to His 3-Motion-in-Limine Limit. Beware...

Andrew E. Russell, May 5, 2023
Ranking Sorting

Split Cup
Tania Melnyczuk, Unsplash

Most judges in the District of Delaware limit the parties to three motions in limine per side. Visiting judges sometimes permit more, but I get the sense that this limit is something native D. Del. judges generally don't want the parties to change when submitting a proposed scheduling order.

But I can't recall a patent case where the parties did not use all of their motions in limine, and want more (even if they didn't ask the Court). These evidentiary issues can just have a large effect on trial. Plus, with a mountain of work bearing down on you in the leadup to trial, it's great to think you might knock out some opposing …

View

Counting By Argument, Rather Than By Claim, When Narrowing Claims

Andrew E. Russell, May 1, 2023
Claim Narrowing § 112

Abacus
Sami, CC BY 2.0

There was an interesting oral order from Judge Burke last week in Natera, Inc. v. CareDX, Inc., C.A. No. 20-38 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2023). Defendant apparently asserted a large number of § 112 defenses based on lack of enablement or written description. The Court held that the defendant had to narrow it's defenses.

The parties further disputed whether the parties should count § 112 arguments by limitation or by claim. The Court held that they should be counted by claim limitation, not by claim:

With respect to the parties' dispute as to whether an argument that a claim is invalid under section 112 based on a particular claim limitation counts …
View

Court Strikes Key Infringement Argument Where Party Had No Good Explanation for Late Disclosure

Andrew E. Russell, April 24, 2023
Infringement Contentions Pennypack

"Did I remember to disclose my infringement counter-arguments? Ah well, I'll just argue that they're responsive." Tim Bogdanov, Unsplash

Judge Williams unsealed a detailed Pennypack decision Friday, where he struck an expert's infringement argument after the party failed to disclose it in their contentions.

The motion and brief provide some helpful context here. The defendant moved to strike material in the expert's opening report that apparently responded for the first time to arguments made in the defendant's non-infringement contentions. Cirba Inc. v. VMWare, Inc., C.A. No. 19-742-GBW, D.I. 1460 at 1 (D. Del. Nov. 28, 2022); Id., D.I. 1461 at 2-3.

The Court rejected an attempt to argue that the argument was "responsive" to a filing …

View
Newer
Older

Archive