A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for date: September 2022

Judge Noreika Questions Failure to Appear for a Hearing, After Counsel Allegedly Mistreated Confidential Information

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 16, 2022
Protective Order LR 26.2

Fire Extinguisher
Piotr Chrobot, Unsplash

An interesting transcript just hit the docket in CBV, Inc. v. ChanBond, LLC, C.A. No. 21-1456-GBW (D. Del.), a contract case, after the transcript restrictions expired. The hearing itself took place back in April, before Judge Noreika.

In the case, defendant ChanBond filed a letter seeking emergency relief after it inadvertently served a sealed filing on out-of-town counsel for another party, who allegedly took the position that he need not maintain the confidentiality of the document, either under the Court's order sealing the document or local rule 26.2 (which provides a confidentiality obligation prior to the entry of a protective order, as explained below).

Out-of-town counsel responded to the request for emergency …

View

Staying And Moving On

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 15, 2022
Stay Pending IPR

Deal with it kitty, you're going to be famous
Deal with it kitty, you're going to be famous Go to Bogdan Farca's profile Bogdan Farca, Unsplash

Reader, I feel like we know each other, so I'm going to level with you. We are going to write a post about absolutely everything Judge Williams does for the next month or so.

New standing order? POST.

First trial? POST.

Pets a cute cat? 2 POSTS.

If you stop clicking? We'll just start juicing the headlines (Judge Williams DESTROYS cat!). This is the world we all live in now.

On a totally unrelated note, Judge Williams issued an opinion today continuing the trend of longer and longer IPR stays. The parties in Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., No. 19-1810-GBW-MPT, had initially stipulated to a stay pending an IPR. That stay expired in February when the case was still assigned to Judge Stark. Two weeks later the defendant moved to stay pending appeal of the IPR (which had been only partially successful). Briefing closed right around the time the case was transferred ...

View

Judge Williams' Form Patent Scheduling Orders Mirror Judge Noreika's—With Some Changes

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 14, 2022
Scheduling Orders Vacant Judgeship

Quilt
Olga Ferina, Unsplash

Judge Williams has now posted his form scheduling orders on the District of Delaware website.

I took a look through his non-ANDA scheduling order, and it will be extremely familiar to Delaware practitioners. It mostly tracks Judge Noreika's form order.

Judge Williams' form order does, however, pull in portions from other Delaware judges' form scheduling orders. Here are some changes in Judge Williams' new form order as compared to Judge Noreika's form:

  • Discovery disputes and motions to amend or strike use language from Judge Stark's form scheduling order.
    • Parties sometimes get tripped up on this, and forget that motions to amend or strike have special rules—so keep that in mind if you have a Judge …
View

A Master's Order, A Question Answered, A Chicken Unchained

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 13, 2022
Pennypack Special Master

So Noble
So Noble Navi, Unsplash

The law can always surprise you. Sometimes this is a bad thing. For instance, I was surprised and saddened to learn that, in the city of Wilmington, you can only have a chicken if it is an emotional support animal who lives at least half of the year in your home. Unfortunately, Learned Claw is not yet house-trained.

Sometimes, though its a good surprise. The sort that you can wring a blog post out of if you can pad it with a personal anecdote (*coughs*).

For instance, I was surprised to learn that there was a dispute about the standard for reviewing one of the most common disputes in all of Delaware -- whether to strike contentions under the Pennypack factors.

The specific context at issue in the painfully long-running case of TQ Delta LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, was an objection to a Special Master's Order. The underlying dispute was your usual Pennypack issue, with one party complaining that the other had disclosed a new DOE theory too late in the game, and the other arguing that the theory was not really new at all. The Special Master went through all of the usual factors and ultimately struck ...

View

Chief Judge Connolly Orders Plaintiffs’ Individual Owners to Appear for In-Person for Evidentiary Hearings Regarding Compliance with His Standing Orders—in at least 14 Different Cases

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 12, 2022
Litigation Funding Standing Orders

Bullet Holes
Mykola Makhlai, Unsplash

At this point it's clear that Chief Judge Connolly's standing orders regarding initial disclosures and litigation funding are no joke, and plaintiffs need to comply with them or risk consequences.

Today, the Court took the further step of requiring the owners of plaintiff entities in at least 14 cases to appear in-person for evidentiary hearings regarding compliance with his standing orders.

The orders today generally took the following form:

Whereas the amended corporate disclosure forms Plaintiff filed in the above-captioned cases identify [owner name(s)] as Plaintiff s owner; and
Whereas the Court has concerns about whether Plaintiff has complied with the Court's standing order regarding third-paty litigation funding [or about the accuracy of the …
View

Attorney Faces Potential Contempt Finding or Sanctions for Failure to Appear at Argument

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 9, 2022

I couldn't find a picture of a person waking a sleeping dragon, so you'll have to settle for an angry bear.
I couldn't find a picture of a person waking a sleeping dragon, so you'll have to settle for an angry bear. mana5280, Unsplash

Ouch. Chief Judge Connolly issued an order today setting an evidentiary hearing on a potential contempt finding or sanctions for an out-of-town attorney who failed to show up for a hearing on his local counsel's motion to withdraw.

The case, Missed Call, LLC v. Freshworks, Inc., No. 22-739 (D. Del. Sept. 8, 2022), looks like it's an NPE case where the defendant filed a § 101 motion to dismiss.

Shortly after the reply brief on the motion to dismiss, however, and just two months into the case, plaintiff's local counsel moved to withdraw, …

View

Please Stop, It's Already Dead

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 8, 2022
Supplemental Authority

markus-spiske-Cf5kL7vcF6U-unsplash
Markus Spiske, Unsplash

I am not, as a rule, a giggler.

However, the timeline of events below—relatable in their banality, painful in their recounting—did elicit an ungentlemanly outburst when I read it this morning.

August 16 - Judge Hall holds a hearing on a 101 motion in Innovative Memory Systems Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc., C.A. No. 14-1480-RGA-JLH

August 17 - The defendant submits a succinct, 1-page, notice of subsequent authority, citing a recent 101 opinion from Judge Andrews.

August 19 - Plaintiff files a 1.5 page response to the notice

August 29 - Defendant responds with a 1.5 page response to the response (sur-response?)

August 31 - Plaintiff responds again about this same opinion (a sur-sur-response?)

September 6 …

View

Cases Are Starting to Be Re-Assigned to Incoming Judge Williams!

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 7, 2022
Congestion DED

Wilmington, <a href='#' class='abbreviation' data-bs-toggle='tooltip' data-placement='top' title='Delaware'>DE</a>
Andrew Russell, CC BY 2.0

Today we started seeing cases re-assigned to incoming Judge Williams. So far, we've seen re-assignments in cases from Chief Judge Connolly and Judge Noreika, including in a case that is set for trial next month. I've only seen one of our firm's vacant judgeship case re-assigned so far, but I would expect many or all of those cases to go as well—we'll see.

Judge Williams doesn't yet have a listing on the District of Delaware website, but we'll keep an eye out for that too, and we'll most likely have a post about his procedures.

UPDATE: Judge Williams' page is now …

View

Non-Infringement Is No Reason to Withhold Core Technical Documents, At Least When the Infringement Allegation is Not Baseless

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 7, 2022
Infringement Contentions Core Technical Documents

Television
Ajeet Mestry, Unsplash

Last week Magistrate Judge Burke ruled on a core technical documents dispute in The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1592 (D. Del.). The defendants sought to avoid production of core technical documents for a product that was accused but that could not infringe. Judge Burke rejected that position:

Defendant shall produce core technical documents for the Logitech-based system. . . . [I]f the Court did not allow discovery of properly-accused products every time a defendant said that its product did not infringe the patent-in-suit, there would be little to no discovery permitted in the patent cases in this Court.

He suggested that the infringement allegation here was not completely baseless, and that whether the product meets the claims depends on claim construction:

The real dispute here appears to be about whether a product can infringe the relevant patent if it contains a two-dimensional and three-dimensional sensor that are implemented in one piece of hardware. . . . It strikes the Court that that issue may get resolved via claim construction, or, if not, then pursuant to a later dispute (perhaps at summary judgment) regarding infringement. But those steps in the case are still to come.

He also rejected the ...

View

Common Interesting Issue

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 6, 2022
Common Interest Privilege

You can see in Oreo's eyes that he does not share a common interest with the toddler
You can see in Oreo's eyes that he does not share a common interest with the toddler __-drz-__, Unsplash

Judge Bataillon just issued an eminently cite-able opinion on the scope of the common interest privilege—an issue that comes up quite a bit in the district, but is notoriously hard to pin down.

What makes this case—Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A. No. 17-184 (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2022) (Mem. and Order)—so useful is that the plaintiff and its alleged common interest BFF had three separate agreements which were executed at different times. This, in turn, allowed the Court to neatly lay out where along the chain of agreements the common interest privilege attached.

NDA Is Not Enough

All three agreements between Fraunhofer and IPXI (the aforementioned BFF) centered on licensing the patents in suit. The first such agreement was a non-disclosure agreement executed by both parties while they were discussing the possibility of a licensing agreement. The Court found this agreement insufficient to create any common interest privilege, noting that "An NDA does not create legal obligations beyond nondisclosure." Id. at 5. As noted in the Magistrate Judge's Order ...

View
Newer
Older

Archive