A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for date: September 2024

When Can a Party Actually Waive Its Claim Construction Positions?

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 8, 2024
Waiver Claim Construction

Analog Clock
None, Ocean Ng, Unsplash

The Court often limits parties to a total of 10 terms for construction. But sometimes it seems like, under O2 Micro, a party can't really waive a claim construction position. After all, if there is a dispute, the Court will have to construe the term one way or another, right? It can't go to the jury like that?

We got a clear answer to that question on Friday when Judge Williams held that both parties had waived their right to offer certain constructions, which they offered just three days before trial.

The parties asked to construe a total of five terms. The Court held that was within its discretion to hold …

View

Demonstrative Lost

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 5, 2024
Trial Trial Practice

It's hornbook law that demonstratives are not evidence. Nevertheless, you'll sometimes see parties file some or all of them on the docket, if for no other reason than to explain a portion of the transcript where an expert is otherwise gesturing vaguely at a powerpoint.

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Unfortunately, there's no rule squarely addressing when it is appropriate to lodge these demonstratives with the Court. Fortunately, Judge Hall gave us all a bit of guidance last week in Ferring Pharms. Inc. v. Finch Therapeutics Group, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1694-JLH, D.I. 494 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2024).

In that case, both parties filed their trial demonstrative a few weeks after the verdict (via notices of lodging). Just …

View

Court Holds That Using Prior Art That Was Considered in Post-Grant Proceedings "Opens the Door" for Patentee to Put Evidence of Those Proceedings Before the Jury

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2024
Trial Procedure Motion in Limine

When the Court says
When the Court says "unless they open the door," typically you'd want to stay far away from that door. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

There is a lot of precedent in D. Del. regarding when the parties can and can't present evidence from post-grant patent proceedings such as IPRs. Most often, the Court holds that such evidence is inadmissible or constrained, to prevent it from unduly influencing the jury. "We already won this once" can be a powerful argument.

Last week, Judge Williams issued an opinion taking the usual position as to most evidence. But the Court also held that simply asserting a prior art reference that was raised in post-grant proceedings opens the door for the patentee to introduce …

View

When A Gimme's A Gotcha

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 3, 2024
Summary Judgment

We'd all like to win the war in one decisive strike. Just have a trial by stone and knock the whole thing out without needing to go to the time and expense of a trial . . . by law.

(Eds. note—has nobody else seen The Dark Crystal? I thought this was a universal reference, but it appears to be just another exhibit in the case for my being quite old)

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Where was I? Anyway.

It's always tempting to take a big swing at summary judgment on validity or infringement in the hopes of knocking out the whole case. This urge, however, must be tempered by the knowledge that these big motions are harder to win. With limited pages and various judicial policies effectively limiting the number of SJ motions that can be brought, a more winnable motion on a small issue is often a good choice.

But an issue can be too small.

That was the lesson of Northwestern Univ. v. Universal Robots A/S, C.A. No. 21-149-JLH, D.I. 327 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2024). The defendant filed a couple big SJ motions on 101 and noninfringement, but also moved for ...

View

Archive