A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for date: 2020

The Unpublished Footnote that Governed Judge Sleet's Markman Procedure for 9 Years

Andrew E. Russell, July 10, 2020
10 Terms Influential

Grapes
Amos Bar-Zeev, Unsplash

If you're not an IP attorney in Delaware, you probably don't remember Grape v. Jingle. It was a 1-page order where Judge Sleet, in four words in a footnote, held that claim construction in all future patent disputes would be limited to 10 terms per patent:

The parties have submitted for construction [19] terms from U.S. Patent No. 7,023,969. Although disinclined to do so in the past, the court - regrettably - will impose a limit of 10 disputed terms per patent for claim construction in this and all future patent actions.

This brief order set Judge Sleet's standard practice for the next nine years until his retirement in 2018.

It quickly circulated around the …

View

Jury Trials Are Back (Sort of)

Jeff Castellano, July 7, 2020
Jury Trials COVID-19

Just before the July 4 holiday, Chief Judge Stark provided some much-anticipated guidance regarding the reinstatement of jury trials in the District of Delaware after the current moratorium expires on July 31, 2020.

In a July 2, 2020 order in Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC, C.A. No. 17-1390-LPS-CJB, Judge Stark told the parties that he had spent "countless hours" meeting with experts and stakeholders about restarting jury trials in his capacity as Chief Judge, and that the Court was "undertaking extensive efforts to be ready to resume jury trials in August, if it is possible to do so safely." With that background, he outlined the details of how the jury trial in the Sunoco case will proceed on August 3, 2020.

View

§ 101 Denial Based on Representations in Complaint and Claimed Features

Andrew E. Russell, July 6, 2020
MTD § 101

In a brief § 101 opinion today, Judge Andrews denied a MTD based solely on Alice step 2. He relied primarily on allegations in the complaint that various claimed features of the invention were not routine or conventional:

Plaintiff . . . alleges in its amended complaint that the [asserted] claims incorporate “inventive concepts that were not well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time” of invention. . . . For example, the amended complaint alleges that some claims teach ways of displaying performance parameters so that users of both live and archived classes can compete with one another. . . . The amended complaint alleges that these functionalities were nonroutine and unconventional at the time of the invention and helped …
View

Court Posts Public Dial-In for Virtual Bench Trial Starting Today

Andrew E. Russell, July 6, 2020
Virtual Trial Bench Trial

Gavel
Gavel, Bill Oxford, Unsplash

Judge Andrews is holding a virtual bench trial in a contract action today. The Court posted a dial-in for public access:

Remark: The public may access the Bench Trial scheduled to start 7/6/2020 by dialing the following phone number: 571-353-2300, then enter 792973273. The dial-in information provides listening capabilities only. (crb) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

Judge Andrews set forth his reasoning for holding a virtual trial in an order in June:

I had a teleconference with the parties on June 5. I suggested a virtual trial. I did not think it was fair for one side to have lawyers in the courtroom while the other side did not. A virtual trial (by which …
View

Judge Stark Gives Insight Into 2020 Trial Schedule

Jeff Castellano, June 30, 2020
LPS COVID-19

In two recent oral orders, Chief Judge Stark provided some insight into how he is scheduling bench trials in 2020. In both cases, Judge Stark indicated a willingness to hold "remote" bench trials. While the question of whether and how jury trials will proceed in 2020 is still very much open, it appears that Judge Stark is continuing to move forward with bench trials, and investigating practical solutions to problems posed by Covid-related restrictions.

View

Judge Stark Dismisses ANDA Case For Reasons that Now Seem Obvious

Andrew E. Russell, June 29, 2020
Paragraph III ANDA

Judge Stark today dismissed an ANDA claim after the defendant converted their ANDA in such a way that it simply did not infringe, and plaintiff was left with no claim and no remedy.

What Is an ANDA? (The Short Short Version)

ANDA cases make up a fair portion of the Court's docket. If you're not already familiar, ANDA cases are brought by patent holders after a drug manufacturer files an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture a generic version of a drug.

As part of the ANDA, if there are unexpired patents listed with the FDA as covering the drug, the manufacturer may certify either that the patents are invalid, unenforceable, or won't be infringed (paragraph IV), or …

View

Judges Connolly and Burke Hold That Arguments Omitted from Reply Are Conceded

Andrew E. Russell, June 26, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

While we're talking about reply briefs—Judge Connolly this month affirmed Judge Burke's conclusion that a defendant had "abandoned" arguments that it set forth in its opening brief, because the defendant failed to further address those arguments in a reply after receiving pushback in the answering brief.

Here is what Judge Burke said:

In its opening brief, Defendants appeared to challenge these claims on two other grounds . . . . However, after Plaintiff pushed back on these issues in its answering brief, Defendants did not further address the issues in their reply brief. . . . Thus, Defendants have abandoned these arguments and the Court will not further address them herein.

Judge Connolly disagreed that such arguments are …

View
Newer
Older

Archive