A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Another Day Older And Deeper In Debt

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 3, 2023
Mavexar

Just today Judge Connolly issued another opinion in the Mavexar cases, denying the motion by Backertop Licensing LLC's sole member to stay the Court's order sanctioning her for failure to appear for a hearing.

As you may recall, the witness initially attempted to appear via teleconference, citing financial concerns and responsibilities at home and at work. Judge Connolly denied the request, and she ultimately failed to appear for the hearing. Thus began a running fine of $200 per day (that the Court is open) until she appears.

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Shortly thereafter, Backertop moved to stay enforcement of the order pending appeal. Judge Connolly denied that motion in a short opinion today noting that success on appeal was unlikely:

I think it unlikely that Backertop and Ms. LaPray will prevail in their appeal. Indeed, were Ms. LaPray's reading of Rule 45 to be adopted by the Federal Circuit, a resident of Hawaii (which is more than 100 miles from any other federal judicial district) could form a shell LLC, give the LLC no assets except for a questionable patent, assert the patent in frivolous infringement lawsuits filed under the LLC' s name in the other 93 federal judicial districts, and have the LLC engage in fraudulent and sanctionable conduct through the course of those suits with impunity

Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., C.A. No. 22-572-CFC, D.I. 62 at 5-6 (D. Del. Oct 3, 2023)

Given the track record of Mavexar appeals so far, this seems a fair assessment.

And so the fine continues to pick up steam. By my count, it has currently been building for 31 taxable days. for a total of $6,200 smackeroos.

Given that state of affairs, I thought ...

View

"[T]he briefing is so lacking that it borders on comical . . . The Court is truly dumbfounded at Plaintiffs’ failure to cite any portion of the trial record . . . ."

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 2, 2023
Contributory Infringement Judgment as a Matter of Law

Artist's illustration of one of the parties' briefs.
Artist's illustration of one of the parties' briefs. Carl Tronders, Unsplash

I wanted to call out the interesting quote in the title, which comes from an opinion Judge Noreika issued on Friday granting-in-part post-trial motions in a patent case.

The quote is in the context of a motion for JMOL of no post-suit indirect infringement because the accused infringer didn't encourage users to infringe. The Court was very disappointed in the parties' briefing:

[T]he Court must still address Defendants’ remaining complaint as to indirect infringement. Defendants argue that there was no evidence at trial to suggest that they encourage others to infringe the ’502 and ’386 Patents, which is required for a finding of inducement liability. On this point, …
View

Judge Williams Follows Judge Noreika on IPR Estoppel Split (Also: Interesting Prior Art Search Analysis)

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 29, 2023

We're running out of good
We're running out of good "the court is split" images. Alice Yamamura, Unsplash

The scope of IPR estoppel is a tricky issue that courts have gone different ways on. Everyone agrees that a party cannot argue invalidity in an IPR based on a prior art product (as opposed to reference), and that IPR estoppel extends to art the petitioner "reasonably could have raised" during the IPR.

Courts have gone different ways, however, when it comes to whether a party can assert invalidity at trial based on a product that embodies a reference that was asserted or could have been asserted at an IPR. In D. Del., as we've discussed, Judge Stark held that a …

View

Obviousness Type Duuuhhhhhble Patenting

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 28, 2023
ODP Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Judge Andrews appeared to break new ground in ODTP law yesterday with his post-trial opinion in Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Labs. Private Ltd., C.A. No. 19-1727-RGA (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2023).

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

(eds. note - I refuse to abbreviate it "Lab'ys." The legal profession has committed more than its fair share of dark linguistic sins, but if Shakespeare wasn't long dead this would have killed him. Actually, check on your favorite author to make sure they survived this edition of the bluebook).

Anyway.

The issue arose in the unusual case where a patent issued and received a term extension of a few hundred days. The patentee filed a continuation which issued a few years later. Because the continuation did not receive a term extension it actually expired before the first patent. Plaintiff (Allergan) submitted this helpful chart with the briefing:

Seriously, it's a nice chart!
Seriously, it's a nice chart! Allergan

Id., D.I. 428 at 4 (Joint Status Report, Plaintiffs' position)

The parties agreed the relevant claims of the two patents were not patentably distinct—the issue was, does ODTP apply in where the first-filed, and first-issued, patent is the one being invalidated?

The Federal circuit had recently answered part of that question in In re Cellect, LLC, 2023 WL 5519716, at *9 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023), where it held that OTDP applied to patent term extensions generally. Cellect, however, did not involve ...

View

Stipulation (Unexpectedly) Denied

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 27, 2023

"Could we do it in a few days? Eh, let's stip it out by six weeks." AI-Generated

We've talked before about how, in the District of Delaware, the Court usually grants stipulated extensions of upcoming deadlines, as long as those deadlines don't impact the Court.

Today I noticed an order from last week that goes against that trend. In Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd. v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC, C.A. No. 22-1648-RGA-LDH (D. Del.), before Judge Andrews, the parties filed a straightforward stipulation extending the deadline to file redacted versions of a number of pleadings:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, and subject to the approval of the Court that the time for …
View

Infringement Ex Machina

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 26, 2023
Copyright Fair Use

It's my dear hope that this post will be one of the few that appeals to muggles. Please, if you see one, thrust your phone at them proudly and demand they read it. Watch their terrified eyes scan over every word. Do not allow them to flee. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat!

We call this SEO in the biz
We call this SEO in the biz AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Judge Bibas gave us this gift of a general interest (comparatively) post with his decision yesterday in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., C.A. No. 20-613-SB (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2023) (Mem. Op.).

The case deals with the exceptionally buzzy issue of AI data scrubbing. Thompson Reuters runs the hugely popular Westlaw legal research platform. As part of that service they provide they provide vaguely useful "headnotes" describing the holdings of the cases.

(Eds. Note - Westlaw, if you are reading this, we can be bought. Every 10% you discount our service will result in an improvement of the adjective above. We can go all the way from "vaguely", to "quite", to "masterfully." It's about time this blog started paying the bills).

Ross is attempting to start some sort of AI-driven competitor where you just type in a question and receive a plain language legal answer. No Booleans, no problem.

To accomplish this, they ...

View

Notes from the 2023 D. Del. Bench and Bar (Part 2)

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 25, 2023
Bench and Bar DED

I was not expecting book recommendations—fiction and non-fiction—from the conference!
I was not expecting book recommendations—fiction and non-fiction—from the conference! saracohenn, Unsplash

Following up on our post last week, here is part 2 of our notes about the District of Delaware Bench and Bar. As we mentioned, these are all without attribution under the Chatham House Rule, and we won't be discussing any specific panels:

Magistrate Judge Tips

  • For discovery disputes, judges want to see what the moving party wants, why, and what law or regulation justifies the request.
  • The party opposing a discovery dispute should focus on the real reason for opposing the request
  • The court appreciates honesty and the parties having some level of restraint in arguing discovery disputes
  • Timing of discovery dispute motions is important. …
View

Notes from the 2023 D. Del. Bench and Bar (Part 1)

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 22, 2023
DED

Why did I try to take notes by hand?!
Why did I try to take notes by hand?! Luke Southern, Unsplash

The 2023 District of Delaware Bench and Bar wrapped up today. It was really great to see everyone in person again. It's hard to believe it, but the last D. Del. Bench and Bar conference was back in May 2018 - over five years ago!

Everyone seems to agree the conference was a huge success. Thank you to the organizers and the Court, who put in a ton of work to make it happen!

Notes

The conference is conducted under the Chatham House Rule—which, honestly, we had forgotten. That means we "are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation …

View

The District of Delaware Bench and Bar Starts Thursday—Your Local Counsel May Be Less Responsive

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 20, 2023
DED

District Court Seal

I imagine all of our Delaware readers already know this, but the District of Delaware Bench and Bar conference starts tomorrow and runs through Friday.

The District of Delaware bench-and-bar is an excellent event that runs all day tomorrow (Thursday) and Friday, including an evening event on Thursday. It is the product of a huge amount of work put in by the District of Delaware FBA as well as many other attorneys, judges, and staff member, for which we are all thankful!

As we mentioned earlier this year, the Court has already issued an order modifying case deadlines that would otherwise fall tomorrow and Friday:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all members of the court - District, Magistrate, and …
View

How Little Is Too Little? Court Dismisses Patent Complaint for Lack of Detail, Threatens Sanctions

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 20, 2023
MTD FRCP 12(b)(6)

Little
Paul Kramer, Unsplash

One of the early questions in many cases (particularly NPE cases) is whether the defendant can move to dismiss the complaint under 12(b)(6) for lacking sufficient detail under Twombly/Iqbal.

The answer is yes: You can, as long as there is insufficient detail. But what is the cutoff? How bad does it have to be?

We got an example of that on Monday, when Chief Judge Connolly dismissed a complaint for lacking detail. According to the Court, all the plaintiff did was say that the defendant's product infringes the claim:

"[A] plaintiff cannot assert a plausible claim for infringement under the Iqbal/Twombly standard by reciting the claim elements and merely concluding that the accused …
View
Newer
Older

Archive