A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Amicus Brief Mentions Backertop's Failure to Disclose Mavexar Under C.D. Cal. Rules; Backertop Tries to Fix It

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 1, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

I'm not sure what to make of the name
KWON JUNHO, Unsplash

We mentioned the other day that Backertop Licensing LLC, one of the Mavexar-related LLCs, had filed two new cases in the Central District of California. We talked about how the C.D. Cal. requires disclosure of parties with a pecuniary interest, and how Backertop had not disclosed Mavexar.

Yesterday, the HTIA filed an amicus brief at the Federal Circuit that pointed this situation out (citing our post!):

In the past week alone, an entity that appears related to Mavexar (Backertop Licensing, LLC) filed suit without disclosing Mavexar’s financial interest, despite a local rule requiring disclosure of “all persons … and corporations … that may have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.”

Also yesterday, Backertop filed new ...

View

Six Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Chief Judge Connolly's Litigation Funding Orders

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 1, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

Artist's depiction of amicus attorneys standing guard outside of the District of Delaware
Artist's depiction of amicus attorneys standing guard outside of the District of Delaware AI-Generated, displayed with permission

There has been so much activity in the Mavexar cases this week that it's hard to keep up. Over the last two days, various parties have requested leave to file a total of six amicus briefs in response to the Mavexar petition for a writ of mandamus in the Nimitz case, and the respondent filed their brief as well.

All of the briefs were great, and many repeat some of the same arguments. I thought it might be worthwhile to take a spin through them and mention a few notable or unique points in each.

(If you need an overview, check out our …

View

Chief Judge Connolly Comes Out Swinging, Issues Searing 78-Page Opinion Rebutting Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 30, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

Charging Bull
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Well this clears things up.

Background of the Mandamus Petition

We've talked about how Chief Judge Connolly has held multiple hearings in the Mavexar actions, examining the owners of several patent assertion LLCs and discovering that the real party in interest seems to be Mavexar LLC. The witnesses testified that Mavexar recruits people to serve as plaintiffs, but then runs the litigation themselves—including seemingly all substantive decisions, even settlement.

After the most recent hearings, Chief Judge Connolly issued a series of orders requiring production to the Court of various communications between the LLCs, their attorneys, and Mavexar. One of the entities involved, Nimitz, immediately filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to stop the Court's …

View

The Real-World Effect of the Mavexar Hearings: Accused Infringer Files Suit Against Mavexar and IP Edge, Alleging an "Aggressive Campaign to Harass and Threaten" [Updated]

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 30, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

Space Fighters
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

I saw this case come in just now, and thought it was worth a post. Today, Power Integrations, Inc. brought an action against Waverly Licensing LLC, Mavexar LLC, Array IP LLC, and IP Edge LLC, alleging that those companies had engaged in a harassment campaign against Power Integrations over alleged patent infringement, and seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.

According to the complaint, Waverly Licensing, LLC—by itself—sued Power Integrations late last month in the Western District of Texas. That case is still pending, according to the docket, and is assigned to Judge Robert Pitman (not Judge Albright). The answer deadline is set for January.

Now, Power Integrations brought a DJ action here in Delaware against …

View

A Bold Discovery Request Is Shot Down

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Nov. 29, 2022
Default Standard Discovery

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Although we have a "default standard" for discovery in DE, there's a lot of leeway for deviation based on the facts of the case. More (or fewer) custodians, more (or less) metadata, search terms that call eldritch horrors from their squalid caches -- pretty much anything is on the table.

Pretty much.

There's always a line somewhere, and I think we found it last week in Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc. C.A. No. 22-904-RGA-MPT (D. Del. Nov. 22, 2022). The defendant, AWS, wanted to include the following passage in the ESI Order:

Acceleration Bay shall not seek email discovery relating to infringement or damages, except that Acceleration Bay …
View

Mavexar-Related Entity Brings Its Suits to C.D. Cal., Does Not Disclose Mavexar as Party with "Pecuniary Interest in the Outcome of the Case" [Update: They Tried to Fix It]

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 28, 2022
Litigation Funding Standing Orders

If you're going to have to face an <a href='#' class='abbreviation' data-bs-toggle='tooltip' data-placement='top' title='Non-Practicing Entity'>NPE</a> patent suit anyway, C.D. Cal. is a nice place to go for hearings.
If you're going to have to face an NPE patent suit anyway, C.D. Cal. is a nice place to go for hearings. Venti Views, Unsplash

I heard over the holiday break that one of the Mavexar-related entities, Backertop Licensing LLC, has continued to file suits, this time in the Central District of California. I also heard that they did not disclose Mavexar as an entity with an interest in the case, despite a rule requiring them to do so.

Yep, That Looks Like Backertop

I checked PACER, and it indeed looks like an entity …

View

Party Scores Hole in One, Invalidates Asserted Claims of Patent at SJ

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 23, 2022
MSJ Summary Judgment

The Court has said in the past that "winning summary judgment in a patent case is like hitting a hole in one." Well, yesterday DePuy Synthes scored a hole in one, invalidating all asserted claims of one patent on SJ in RSB Spine, LLC v. DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1515-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 22, 2022).

How Did They Do It?

Basically, they won it at claim construction, but couldn't end the case until summary judgment.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,984,234, covers a "base plate" that a surgeon can screw into two bones in a person's spinal cord to stabilize them.

The base plate screws into the bones (blue, below), and a …

View

Counting is Hard

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Nov. 22, 2022
Claim Narrowing

Crissy Jarvis, Unsplash

An interesting opinion from Judge Thynge last week on case narrowing, and in particular, how to count invalidity arguments.

The defendant in Targus International LLC v. Victorinox Swiss Army, Inc.., C.A. No.20-464-RGA-MPT (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2022), had agreed to reduce the number of prior art "arguments" to 5. In its expert reports, however, they had counted reference "A in view of B", as well as "B in view of A" as a single argument. This lead to the inclusion of (what plaintiff counted as) more than 5 arguments. Plaintiff then moved to strike the extraneous arguments and Judge Thynge agreed, holding:

In its letter brief, Defendant maintains that it "never labeled any reference …
View

Now a Defendant in a Mavexar Case—Not a Plaintiff—Has Moved for a Protective Order

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 21, 2022
Litigation Funding Standing Orders

"Lamplight" isn't the worst name for a patent assertion entity. Riley Bourdon, Unsplash

Today brought yet another twist in the ongoing Mavexar saga. In one of the cases, a defendant—not the plaintiff—moved unopposed for a protective order to prevent the Mavexar-related LLC from producing the documents that the defendant sent to it (and that, presumably, the Mavexar-related LLC may have sent to Mavexar itself).

Specifically, the defendant moved for a protective order to "prevent the public filing of three categories of information that ABB expects to be provided by Plaintiff and its counsel in response to the Court’s Memorandum Order," including (1) documents related to sales and royalty rates, (2) communications related to the terms of the settlement agreement, and (3) the agreement itself.

As to those three categories, the defendant asked the Court to issue a protective order that protects the info from disclosure in both filings and in future hearings or ...

View
Newer
Older

Archive