Chief Judge Connolly issued an opinion today addressing whether a claim to a COVID "vaccine" can extend to something that is not a "vaccine," and ultimately calling for the Federal Circuit to address its inconsistent precedent on construction of patent claim preambles.
The claims at issue claimed "[a] vaccine comprising . . ." a certain formulation. They agreed on what a vaccine is, but disagreed as to whether that term in the preamble to the claims should be limiting:
What the parties dispute is whether the term "vaccine" is "limiting" in claims 27 and 28. "Limiting" is patent-speak for "is an element of the claim." . . . Notwithstanding the fact that claim 27 …
I couldn't find a picture for this. Just imagine each leaf is an individual claim construction oral order.Erol Ahmed, Unsplash
I've noticed that, since November of last year, Judge Burke has been issuing claim construction opinions in some cases in the form of a series of oral orders on the docket, rather than a formal memorandum opinion or an order with footnotes. I thought I'd flag this so that people know what may happen if you have claim construction in a case before Judge Burke.
I first saw the Court construe terms via oral orders on the docket in November 2023, in The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., C.A. No. 22-057, D.I. 140-141 ( …
Alice ponders the internet of thingsAI-Generated, displayed with permission
Last week in Ignite Enterprise Software Solutions, LLC et al. v. NGData, US Inc. and NGData N.V., C.A. 23-1209 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2024), Judge Murphy dinged defendants for stale citations, including failing to cite recent Federal Circuit precedent on the level of detail required in patent pleadings.
We flagged the case that this Court called the "most recent and most relevant Federal Circuit authority" back when it came out: Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., C.A. No. 2020-2218, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20624 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021).
Analysis of Every Claim is Not Required in the Complaint
"By careful review of literally just the face of the patent, we have determined that the conception date is no later than the 2/3/2017 filing date. You're welcome."AI-Generated, displayed with permission
I admit, sometimes I write about things because I want to be able to find them next time I need them. This is one of those posts.
As we've discussed before, most patent cases involve an interrogatory to the patentee asking for the date of conception. Patentees often give a low-effort initial response along the lines of "no later than x," where x is the date of filing or some other easy-to-identify date. Then they wait to see whether they need an earlier date, and supplement if so.
This has two benefits for the patentee: (1) it makes it hard for the accused infringer to weigh the relative merits of the prior art, because it has to hit a moving target, and (2) it's super easy, because the patentee doesn't have to review any of the materials. Thus, it's a common response.
The Court has rejected this response in the past, including the idea that "[a patentee] has no obligation to investigate whether the patent-in-suit is entitled to an earlier priority date at least until Defendant has provided its invalidity contentions." The Court in that transcript forced the patentee to actually respond to the interrogatory—making it a handy transcript for accused infringers.
There's a patent trial starting on Monday in Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Finch Therapeutics Group, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1694-JLH (D. Del.), and filings are flying back and forth across the docket this week. The Court's order on motions in limine included this line, which piqued my interest:
To say that the Court is troubled by the occurrences to date would be an extreme understatement.
What was so troubling? It's tough to decipher exactly what is going on from the docket, which is fragmented and redacted. But it has to do with the parties' actions related to an inventor of certain of the asserted patents.
Behold, our claim chart. Look upon it and despair!AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Parties in patent cases often fight about the sufficiency of infringement and invalidity contentions. Parties may offer broad initial contentions, keeping their options open as the case develops and avoiding the cost of detailed contentions. The opposing party, though, may want detailed contentions to narrow and explain the case and to tie parties to their positions.
Often, one side or the other moves to compel more detailed contentions knowing that, if they lose and if the opposing party refuses to supplement, they will be better positioned to exclude the more detailed contentions inevitably offered later.
The defendant in Almondnet, Inc. v. Viant Technology LLC, C.A. No. …
In Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, C.A. No. 20-1713 (D. Del.), the plaintiff brought patent infringement claims for several patents, plus a DJ claim seeking a declaratory judgment of no FRAND license defense, citing a previous Delaware case finding no such defense absent a sworn affidavit that the defendant would sign a global FRAND license.
In the alternative, if the defendant submitted a signed affidavit, Plaintiff's complaint sought a "declaratory judgment determining the appropriate worldwide FRAND licensing terms for Philips’ world-wide portfolio of patents under ETSI policies."
With its answer, the defendant included just such a signed affidavit, along with its own DJ counterclaim and breach of contract counterclaim …
This image makes sense if you get to the end of this post, I swear.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Last week, during our blog break, visiting Judge John Frank Murphy of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a fascinating disqualification decision in a patent action, Veeva Systems Inc. v. Tact.ai Technologies, Inc., Aktana, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1032 (D. Del. July 3, 2024).
In short, an attorney represented the current defendant, Veeva, against a trade secret and patent infringement suit back in 2013. That suit related to software called "Appoved Email." The attorney supervised the defense team and ultimately helped draft a settlement agreement that included a cross-license of some Veeva patent applications. Id. at 2-5.
Yesterday, in Datacore Software Corp. v. Scale Computing, Inc., C.A. No. 22-535-GBW (D. Del. June 21, 2024), the Court issued fascinating opinion rejecting an indefiniteness argument for apparatus and method claims that included an "intent" requirement.
The claims at issue relate to allocating drive space on computer disks. The patentee explained in the specification that the system involves defining multiple virtual disks that can, collectively, be larger than the actual physical space available (e.g., in a sense, they overlap):
One advantage of the present invention is that the physical storage devices that are placed into a storage pool do not need to add up to the size of …
"Did . . . did he just end our case with deposition testimony? Ah, I'm sure it will be fine."AI-Generated, displayed with permission
The Court unsealed a memorandum order yesterday in Sensormatic Electronics, LLC v. Genetec (USA) Inc., C.A. No. 20-760-GBW (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2024), where Judge Williams found a patent case exceptional, and awarded fees against the patentee plaintiff.
The Court previously held that one of the asserted patents, the '652 patent, was invalid because it was offered for sale after it was reduced to practice and more than a year before when the inventor applied for a patent.
In this order, the core cause of the exceptional case finding was that, after a …
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
