A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


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

A Helpful Order on Moving to Amend to Add Inequitable Conduct

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 2, 2022
Inequitable Conduct FRCP 15

Attorney searching for factual support for their inequitable conduct allegations
Attorney searching for factual support for their inequitable conduct allegations Agence Olloweb, Unsplash

Yesterday, in Intercept Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 20-1105-MN (D. Del. Sept. 1, 2022), Judge Hall granted a motion to amend to add inequitable conduct allegations almost a year after the deadline for amendment in the scheduling order.

Most D. Del. scheduling orders include a deadline for motions to amend or to join additional parties. Normally, the standard for motions to amend in the Third Circuit is relatively easy to meet. But when there is a scheduling order deadline for amendment, the Courts has held that parties must show "good cause" under Rule 16 if they move to amend after the …

View

An Unfortunate Objection

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 1, 2022
Damages

Jane Almon, Unsplash

It's not often that there's a consequence to objecting to an exhibit in the pretrial order. The common wisdom is that it's better to be safe than sorry, so pretty much every exhibit gets some sort of objection—at least at the PTO stage. Of course, many of these objections are abandoned come trial following a series of interminable meet and confers between the least senior members of each trial team. The system works.

Usually. Sometimes, one objection too many can cost you $6,000,000.

A Common Problem Made Worse By COVID

As often happens in cases between competitors, the defendants in Sunoco Partners Marketing Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC, (yes, we're talking about this one …

View

Too Far: Judge Andrews Denies Post-Trial § 101 Motion on System for Blending Gasoline and Butane

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 31, 2022
Prior Art § 101

Tanks
Patrick Federi, Unsplash

Judge Andrews resolved what seems like a tough § 101 motion today, and I thought the claims of the patent (and the outcome) were interesting.

The patent involves a system for mixing gasoline and butane. The patent specification said that these fuels were previously mixed in multiple ways, including in a laborious process involving manually adding butane to a tank of gasoline and then stirring the two together.

There were a number of claims at issue, but the one that stands out most to me simply claims the whole system and what it does, without claiming how the components work:

A system for blending gasoline and butane at a tank farm comprising:
a) a tank of …
View

Fee Fi Fo Fun

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Aug. 30, 2022
Fees

Ashley Jurius, Unsplash

Typically, parties on the same side of the V like to put up a united front. Whatever things might look like behind the scenes, in public, they make a big show of laughing loudly at each other's jokes and slapping one another on the back with more than necessary force.

Apparently, that all goes out the window when fees are on the line.

Earlier this year, Judge Andrews awarded the defendants attorneys' fees in M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc, C.A. No. 14-1102-RGA (D. Del. Aug 16, 2022) (Clarifying Order), largely because the plaintiffs had pressed an infringement theory contrary to the Court's claim construction.

As it happened, there were two unrelated …

View
Newer
Older

Archive