A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Patent
Patent

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

Judge Williams' New Form Scheduling Order Adopts Chief Judge Connolly's Ranking Procedures for Summary Judgment Motions—But Not for Daubert Motions

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 26, 2022
Scheduling Orders Scheduling Order

System Update
Clint Patterson, Unsplash

Judge Williams issued a new form scheduling order last week. Updating his previous orders, he primarily added text mirroring Judge Connolly's procedures that require parties to rank summary judgment motions (where if any motion is denied, lower-ranked motions will not be considered):

(d) Ranking of Summary Judgment Motions. Any party that files more than one summary judgment motion shall number each motion to indicate the order in which the party wishes the Court to review its pending motions. The first motion the party wishes the Court to consider shall be designated #1,the second motion shall be designated #2, and so on. The Court will review the party's summary judgment motions in the order designated by …
View

Chief Judge Connolly Dismisses Claims on Patents Withdrawn Prior to ANDA Trial with Prejudice

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 24, 2022
Trial Claim Narrowing

"Do you think 11 patents might be more than we need? Nah" Maciej Ruminkiewicz, Unsplash

Back in May, we wrote about an order by Chief Judge Connolly directing an ANDA plaintiff to cut back to 4 claims prior to trial, or potentially face a more difficult road for injunctive relief.

Plaintiff cut back to 6 claims, apparently dropping five patents from the case, and the bench trial proceeded.

Last month, Chief Judge Connolly issued his post-trial opinion regarding infringement and invalidity, and directed the parties to enter a proposed order. The parties ended up disputing what should happen to those dropped claims from the five dropped patents in the final judgment:

The proposals differ with respect to the disposition …
View

Status Communications Between Litigation and Prosecution Counsel Were Not Privileged

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 19, 2022
Prosecution Prosecution Counsel

Something is missing here.
Something is missing here. Pawel Czerwinski, Unsplash

A recent privilege decision from Judge Fallon became public this week, after the redactions period expired, and it has some interesting conclusions about communications between patent prosecution and patent litigation counsel.

In Huber Engineered Woods LLC v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., C.A. No. 19-342-GBW-SRF (D. Del.), the defendant accused infringer brought an inequitable conduct counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff knowingly submitted five false "Substitute Statements in Lieue of Oath or Declaration" to the PTO.

As the Court explains, the defendant apparently relied on testimony from the person who signed the statements, and from the inventors, to allege that they were false:

These Substitute Statements, which were signed by [plaintiff] HEW employee Dave …
View

"As Pointless as a Motion Can Be"

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 12, 2022
DOE Motion for Reconsideration

Sad Attorney
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Here's some interesting language from Judge Andrews yesterday, in an oral order:

In a motion (No. 15-611, D.I. 532) that is as pointless as a motion can be, Plaintiff asks for reconsideration/clarification of an issue that was not decided. Defendants add to the frivolity by writing five pages in opposition (No. 15-611, D.I. 542), while agreeing that I did not decide the issue. Both sides are surely right. Thus, Plaintiffs motion is DISMISSED as moot.

Plaintiff had moved for reconsideration of Judge Andrews' order adopting a special master order that struck a new DOE theory. According to Judge Andrews' original order:

I think TQ . . . advanced a distinctly new DOE theory and …
View

Judge Williams Permits Indefiniteness Argument at Markman, Invites Live Witness Testimony

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 10, 2022
Markman Hearing Markman

Fall. A great time for a Markman hearing with some in-person testimony.
Fall. A great time for a Markman hearing with some in-person testimony. Timothy Eberly, Unsplash

It's helpful to keep in mind that while most D. Del. judges permit indefiniteness arguments at Markman, some have (at least sometimes) precluded it.

This is important since, obviously, the Markman hearing is one of the earlier milestones in a case where a defendant can potentially get rid of some or all of the claims—but that only works if the judge is willing to entertain indefiniteness before the summary judgment stage.

As of late last week, we now have one more data point, for new Judge Williams. In response to an amended joint claim chart where the defendant asserted indefiniteness of every disputed …

View

Judge Williams Denies Summary Judgment, But Schedules "Mini-Markman"

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 7, 2022
Markman Hearing Markman

A miniature attorney, ready for a mini-Markman.
A miniature attorney, ready for a mini-Markman. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

We got another good data point on Judge William's practices this wekk. In Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Co., C.A. No. 18-392-GBW (D. Del.), Judge Williams denied a non-infringement summary judgment motion—but also scheduled a "mini-Markman" to resolve the underlying claim construction issue.

The defendant moved for summary judgment of non-infringment, arguing that the Court's prior construction of a particular term was incorrect, but that regardless, it would not infringe under either the purportedly incorrect construction or what it alleges is the correct construction.

The Court found factual disputes as to both, and easily disposed of the non-infringement motion.

The …

View

Bifurcating the License Defense Would Involve Repeating Evidence, So . . . No.

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 5, 2022
Bifurcation

"Your honor, it's like the movie Groundhog Day, but we're repeating a trial..." AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Judge Williams issued a decision on Monday denying a motion to bifurcate a patent case, rejecting bifurcation where it would increase the total time by three days and involve repeating the same evidence.

The defendant moved bifurcate a five-day patent trial into a three-day jury trial on license issues and then, if necessary, a separate five-day trial on infringement.

The Court did not seem eager to sign up for a three-day trial with a significant risk of a second full trial later—especially one that repeats the same explanations of the technology:

The crux of ASC's position is that a two-day reduction in trial …
View
Newer
Older

Archive