A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Yet Another In Our Series of Unfortunate Events Posts

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 20, 2022
Pro Hac

DALL·E 2022-12-20 17.09.05 - digital art of state of delaware forlornly looking at shoes
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

One of the better known quirks of Delaware practice is the requirement of association with "Delaware Counsel." This requirement is more stringent than any other jurisdiction that I know of, requiring a Delaware lawyer to sign and file all papers in the action:

Association with Delaware counsel required. Unless otherwise ordered, an attorney not admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware may not be admitted pro hac vice in this Court unless associated with an attorney who is a member of the Bar of this Court and who maintains an office in the District of Delaware for the regular transaction of business (“Delaware counsel”). Consistent with CM/ECF Procedures, Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. Unless otherwise ordered, Delaware counsel shall attend proceedings before the Court.

D. Del. LR 83.5(d)

Although the requirement itself is generally well known, the highlighted clause is fairly obscure, and ...

View

Judge Andrews Orders Party to Identify Lawyer Responsible for Frivolous Motion, So They Can Explain Why They Thought the Motion was Justified

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 19, 2022
Sealing Sanctions

Google apparently indexed its allegedly confidential information on its own search engine.
Google apparently indexed its allegedly confidential information on its own search engine. Pawel Czerwinski, Unsplash

Whew, this is another one that falls in the "I'm glad I'm not involved in that" bucket (some previous entries here and here).

On Friday, Judge Andrews rejected a frivolous motion to seal, after he found some of the supposedly-sensitive information as a top result on Google:

This is about as frivolous a motion to seal as I have seen. Defendants submitted a declaration of Phil Harnish in support of their motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The motion is based on the purported need to avoid disclosing “sensitive personal information about employees that, if revealed, would …
View

Judge Williams Bifurcates Patent Trial, Separating Willfulness, Damages, and Inducement from Direct Infringement and Invalidity

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 17, 2022
Trial Practice Trial Procedure

We'll just handle this part first...
We'll just handle this part first... Diliara Garifullina, Unsplash

I always think it's worth paying attention to how the judges handle the presentation of evidence at trial, changes that may seem small (like bifurcation) can have a big impact on how the trial actually goes. A bifurcated trial can obviously lead to a much shorter trial, if the defendant prevails on the first phase. But even if it doesn't, bifurcation really impacts the kinds of trial themes that the plaintiff can put up, for example making it harder to paint the defendant as a bad actor from the start.

Judge Williams recognized that effect earlier this month in his order granting bifurcation of a patent trial—and suggested that restricting plaintiff from presenting those themes favors bifurcation:

The Court finds that a reduction in prejudice to BSC weighs in favor of bifurcation. [Defendant] BSC argues that [plaintiff] UT is " likely to tell a story" that UT " got an important patent and told [BSC] about their technology; [BSC] was greedy, intentionally stole the invention," and profited therefrom; and UT "got nothing." D.I. 248 at 10. That story, BSC argues, has nothing "to do with the objective question of whether the [Accused Products] meet[] all the limitations" of the Asserted Claims of the '296 patent . . . or whether the patent is invalid." Id. UT does not challenge BSC's description of UT's likely trial narrative. . . . Rather, UT argues, the need to present a piecemeal case to the jury will prejudice UT. Id.
. . . UT's description of BSC's alleged willful infringement could encourage a jury to find that BSC infringed the '296 patent for reasons unrelated to a comparison of the Accused Products to the Asserted Claims. The Court also [previously] found that "UT's evidence of post-suit willfulness is limited." . . . That finding increases the risk that UT's willfulness evidence could bias the jury's infringement and invalidity decisions. . . . When the Court weighs the risk of prejudice to BSC against the ability to mitigate that prejudice (e.g., through a jury instruction), the Court finds that the potential to reduce prejudice to BSC weighs in favor of bifurcation.

That's interesting, because (obviously) parties very often try to ...

View

Court Orders Mavexar Entity to Show Cause Why It Should Not Be Sanctioned

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 15, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

Before we get too deep into the weeds on round 237 of the Mavexar saga, I wanted to propose a mascot. Something we can use on the site so that you can instantly spot one of these posts (you can also use the tags, of course). Having given it all the thought I am prepared to, I propose Mavexar the crab-monster.

Here he is happily greeting you and welcoming you to sit by his fire.

Happy Holidays Crab Monsters!
Happy Holidays Crab Monsters! AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Andrew may have a competing vision, but for now, look for Crab Man!

Anyway.

A Missed Deadline

Following the Federal Circuit's denial of Nimitz's Mandamus petition last week, we saw our first action from Judge Connolly on these newly un-stayed cases. I had not recalled that, under his original order, the plaintiff was scheduled to produce the documents related to its relationship with Mavexar and IP Edge by December 8. As it happens, that was the same day the Federal Circuit lifted the stay.

Neither the Federal Circuit's preliminary stay order, nor its ultimate denial of the mandamus petition adjusted that deadline. Nor, apparently, did Nimitz request the District Court amend that deadline.

So the 8th came and went with no production of documents. Indeed, up through yesterday there is no mention of the submission on the docket, which ultimately led the Court to issue a brief order requiring Nimitz to "show cause as to why it should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the November 10 Memorandum Order." Nimitz Technologies LLC v. CNET Media, Inc. C.A. No. 21-1247-CFC, D.I. 37 (D. Del. Dec. 14, 2022). The Court did note, however, it would ...

View

Briefing Complete on Two More Mandamus Petitions Related to the Mavexar Hearings

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 14, 2022
Mavexar Mandamus

A Creek View
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

We've posted a lot about the Mavexar hearings. Earlier this month, two of the plaintiffs in cases that had hearings scheduled, Creekview IP LLC and Waverly Licensing LLC, filed nearly-identical petitions for mandamus.

The petitions are linked below. In each, the petitioner seeks to reverse Chief Judge Connolly's order scheduling an evidentiary hearing to investigate compliance with the Court's standing orders:

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus reversing the Memorandum Order and ending the judicial inquisition of Petitioner.

The petitions argue that the Court lacked Article III standing, because the cases had been dismissed, that Chief Judge Connolly abuse his discretion in issuing the standing order, and that Congress has …

View

Also Maybe Fill the Pages

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 13, 2022
Page Limits

The parrot is supposed to be shrugging, but we're not quite at the singularity yet
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Look, I know what I said in the last post. I can read.

But I just noticed the opinion in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. 17-1405-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2022) which had an interesting footnote that's worth pointing out.

Kroy dealt with collateral estoppel issues following a series of IPR's that invalidated numerous claims. Following the the IPR's, the plaintiff asserted new claims and the defendant moved to dismiss arguing that these 20-ish new claims were not materially different from those already invalidated. The plaintiff responded to the motion without devoting much space to reasons why some of the specific claims were not materially different, noting that …

View

Keep It Concise

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 12, 2022
Summary Judgment

Chris Chow, Unsplash

The concise statement of facts is perhaps the trickiest part of SJ practice in Delaware. Given the limited space available in the briefs, it's often the only place where a party has room to lay out the story behind their motion and the case as a whole.

The danger, of course, is that you'll put in some unnecessary fact which the other party may dispute. While this might seem like a minor worry, Judge Connolly has denied many SJ motions on this basis alone.

Last week Judge Williams took the same tack in Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC, C.A. No. 20-887-GBW (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2022) (Mem. Order), a case which he …

View

EXTRA! EXTRA! Federal Circuit Denies Nimitz Petition

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 8, 2022
Mavexar Litigation Funding

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Late breaking news in the Mavexar saga today.

Very Brief Background

Nimitz technologies was one of the Mavexar-related entites that appeared at a hearing last month before Judge Connolly, where they were ordered to:

"produce to the Court" (1) their communications with Mavexar and IP Edge regarding (a) Nimitz's formation, acquisition of patents, and potential liability for asserting those patents in these cases, (b) the 328 patent, and (c) the initiation and settlement of the cases Nimitz filed in this Court; (2) retention letters and/or agreements between Nimitz and [plaintiff's attorney's] firm; (3) monthly bank statements for any and all bank accounts held by Nimitz for the time period during which it filed the 11 complaints …
View

D. Del. Announces Selection of New Magistrate Judge Laura D. Hatcher to Replace Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 7, 2022
DED Judges

District Court Seal

The District Court yesterday announced the selection of Laura D. Hatcher as the new magistrate judge to replace the irreplaceable Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge, who has announced plans to retire on March 31, 2023.

As the Court sets forth, Ms. Hatcher has worked for two firms here in Delaware, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office:

Ms. Hatcher is currently the Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware. In her five years as an Assistant United States Attorney, Ms. Hatcher has handled a wide variety of civil and criminal matters. Before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Ms. Hatcher worked as a litigation associate with DLA Piper (2012-2017) and Richards, Layton & …
View

A B-Plot in the Mavexar Saga

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 6, 2022
Mavexar Mandamus

Hasnain Sikora, Unsplash

The Federal Circuit made its second foray into the Mavexar (I think) saga on Friday when it ruled on a new petition for Mandamus is In re: Swirlate IP LLC.

The plaintiff in Swirlate filed a petition for mandamus on November 30, seeking to stop a scheduled December 6 hearing.

I should note at the outset the while the Swirlate case seems to mimic the M.O. of a Mavexar entity—a Texas LLC with a single managing partner with no apparent connection to the patent—the Court has not yet held a hearing on the issue, so we can't say conclusively that the matter is related. It was, however, scheduled for a hearing in December that that sole …

View
Newer
Older

Archive