A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


MN
The Honorable Maryellen Noreika

Two Years In, Section 101 Days Continue

Jeff Castellano, Feb. 2, 2021
Section 101

Nearly two years after the first "Section 101 Day" was held before Judge Stark and Judge Burke, Judges in this District continue to hold multi-motion, multi-case, all-day hearings on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

When Judge Stark launched the hearings in early 2019, he expressed hope that they would make resolving the unending crush of Section 101 motions faster and more efficient. The hope for efficiency seems to have been borne out.

Judge Stark noted in a December 2020 order (see below) that "the Court continues to find that its experimental procedure of addressing multiple Section 101 motions from separate cases in one hearing is an efficient use of judicial resources and a beneficial tool for resolving …

View

Court Rejects § 101 Motion Due to Lack of Detail in Specification: Is This the Way of the Future?

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 4, 2021
MTD § 101

GPS Navigation
Alvaro Reyes, Unsplash

Judge Noreika issued an opinion today denying a § 101 motion on a patent that covers delivering GPS navigation information to a vehicle in a "short burst."

As to Alice step 1, the Court found that the claims were "do it on a computer" claims directed to the abstract idea of sending and receiving navigation data:

[A]t step 1, claim 1 seems focused on using computers to perform a human activity more efficiently.

At step 2, however, the Court found that the patent's bare-bones specification saved it from § 101—it's hard to find that any particular solution was conventional at the § 101 motion-to-dismiss stage when the specification simply does not discuss the prior …

View

Words, Words, Words

Jeff Castellano, Dec. 29, 2020
Page Limits KB

Longstanding practice in the District of Delaware, pursuant to the Court's local rules and the Judges' form scheduling orders and other standing orders, mandated page limits for briefing.
For example, the Court's local rules set limits of 20 pages for opening, briefs 20 pages for answering briefs, and 10 pages for reply briefs, all in 12 point font. See LR 7.1.3(a)(4); LR 5.1.1(a). However, since about mid-2019, some Judges here have permitted or required word limits in lieu of page limits for some types of documents.

View

Rule 31 Depositions by Written Questions In Light of COVID-19 Travel Restrictions

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 11, 2020
Depositions FRCP 31

COVID-19
COVID-19, CDC/Hannah A Bullock; Azaibi Tamin

Here's something you don't see every day.

After a discovery dispute about bringing a parties' European witnesses to the US for deposition during the pandemic, Judge Noreika ordered that depositions of a defendants' witnesses may initially take place by written questions under FRCP 31:

ORAL ORDER . . . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that . . . Plaintiff may request a deposition of the witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31. Any such deposition shall be subject to Local Rule 30.6, with the "commencement" of the written deposition being when Defendants' counsel receives the written questions and the "conclusion" of the deposition being when Defendants' counsel serves the response …
View

No Interlocutory Appeal of Contract-Based Patent Standing (Ever?)

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 2, 2020
Standing MTD

Stop Sign
Luke van Zyl, Unsplash

Late last week, Judge Noreika denied a motion for interlocutory appeal of an denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Security Interest Doesn't Prevent Suit After Debt Repaid

In moving to dismiss, defendant argued that the PTO assignment records show that the the patentee had assigned its patents to a lender as collateral and, after the debt was repaid, had never received an assignment back or any release of the security interest.

Plaintiff countered that the security interest was extinguished once the debt was repaid, regardless of any release or assignment specific to the patent. So no separate assignment back was needed.

Judge Noreika sided held that the judgment had been satisfied …

View

Fees Motion Clears One Hurdle, Trips Over Another

Jeff Castellano, Oct. 27, 2020
Fees

Last week, Judge Noreika denied defendant Shopify Inc.'s motion for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 ("The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party."), holding Shopify partly accountable for the amount of fees it incurred during the relatively short pendency of the case. While the opinion is worth reading in its entirety, there are two particularly notable aspects to the decision.

What Shopify won't be getting
Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

First, Judge Noreika found that Shopify was the "prevailing party," on the basis of the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of its case with prejudice. While the Court had not issued any merits-based decisions prior to the dismissal, and did not itself effectuate the dismissal (it was self-executing under Rule …

View

Potential Civil Jury Trial Starting Oct. 26

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 9, 2020

Judge Norieka is considering holding a civil jury trial starting October 26, 2020 in Butler v. Hanover Foods, C.A. No. 19-1221-MN (D. Del.). The parties had their pretrial conference last week, and the judge intends to issue a decision next week about whether to go forward with the trial.

If the Court decides to go forward, this will be the first post-COVID civil jury trial I've heard about so far.

View

Judge Noreika Awards Fees and Fees-on-Fees

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 2, 2020
Final Judgment FRCP 54

About 204,261 of these.
About 204,261 of these. Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

Judge Noreika today awarded $204,261.31 in attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff in a trademark action, after the defendants fired their counsel, failed to obtain new counsel, and eventually had a default judgment entered against them.

She also awarded fees-on-fees, granting attorney fees for bringing the successful fees motion but not for a previous unsuccessful fees motion.

The previous motion was denied due to timing issues. Plaintiffs had filed it more than 14 days after the default judgment, and Judge Thynge issued an R&R holding that the 14-day fees deadline under FRCP 54 had passed.

Judge Noreika then offered the plaintiffs a second chance to file the fees motion. She ultimately disagreed …

View

Judge Noreika Rules that "Justice and Equity" Are Not Standalone Considerations in Collateral-Estoppel Analysis

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 17, 2020
Preclusion Estoppel

Plaintiff Estopped as Nearby District Moves to Overtake
Plaintiff Estopped as Nearby District Moves to Overtake Abed Ismail, Unsplash

Judge Noreika had a rare holding estopping a plaintiff from asserting the lone patent-in-suit patent due to collateral estoppel after trial.

The Court held a five-day bench trial in Biogen Int'l GmbH v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, C.A. No 17-823-MN in December 2019, dealing with a host on invalidity issues, including obviousness, enablement, and written description. The parties completed post-trial briefing in March 2020, and and a final opinion was thus expected in the not-too-distant future.

Unfortunately for Biogen, they also sued a different defendant, Mylan, in the Northern District of West Virginia on the same patent. That case went to trial in February 2020, on the sole …

View
Newer
Older

Archive