A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for search: Stark

Court Clarifies That an Expert Declaration Submitted After Reply Reports Can Serve as a Basis to Expand Expert's Trial Testimony (If You Have the Right Scheduling Order)

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 5, 2024
Expert Witness Expert Reports

I have no idea what picture would go with this post. Enjoy some nice, royalty-free antelope.
I have no idea what picture would go with this post. Enjoy some nice, royalty-free antelope. NEOM, Unsplash

Years ago, Judge Stark added language to his form scheduling order to resolve a common dispute: can an expert submit a declaration in support of summary judgment?

The language requires the parties to agree in advance, at the start of the case, whether they will permit this:

Expert Report Supplementation. The parties agree they [will] [will not] [CHOOSE ONE] permit expert declarations to be filed in connection with motions briefing (including case-dispositive motions).

Judge Stark has since moved up, but several D. Del. judges still use this language in their scheduling orders, including Judges Noreika, Hall, Burke, and …

View

Where Have All The Ca-a-a-ses Gone?

Nathan R. Hoeschen, March 17, 2022

Buffalo
Andrew E. Russell, CC BY 2.0

If you're invested enough in Delaware litigation to be reading this blog, you will be aware that Judge Stark is slated to leave us soon, and the district has set forth some guidance on what will happen to his cases when he departs. The Court has been reassigning Judge Stark's cases in batches since the beginning of February, and I have arbitrarily decided (because its Friday) that today we have enough data to do a quick rundown of where the cases are going.

As of today, the Court has transferred a mere 26 of Judge Stark's patent cases (counting related cases as a single case),whichhave been distributed as follows:

  • 7 - Judge Noreika …
View

Likelihood of Stay Pending IPR in W.D. Texas vs. Delaware

Emily S. DiBenedetto, Feb. 23, 2022
IPR Stay

Today, we analyze the District of Delaware's propensity to grant stays pending IPR decisions, as compared to the Western District of Texas. Here are the big takeaways:

  • Prior to IPR institution, motions to stay are almost always denied in D. Del.;
  • Judge Albright of W.D. Tex. has denied 40% of motions (i.e. two motions) to stay pending instituted IPRs, but there is not much data available yet;
  • D. Del. has denied about 28% of motions (i.e. 16 out of 58) to stay pending instituted IPRs in the last four years;
  • D. Del. receives far more motions to stay pending IPR than W.D. Tex., and grants them just over half the time (~60% in the last 4 years, …
View

Two Judges Denied Requests to Reschedule Hearings Last Week: A Symptom of COVID Congestion, or Just Random?

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 1, 2021
Congestion COVID-19

Traffic Congestion
Randy Lisciarelli, Unsplash

It's not all that common for judges in the District of Delaware to deny requests to reschedule hearings. But last week we saw two requests denied. And, in both instances, the Court suggested that the party requesting cancellation should just have another attorney prepare for argument rather than rescheduling.

In one instance, Judge Andrews denied a request to reschedule a Markman hearing, stating that:

ORAL ORDER: The request to change the date of the Markman . . . is DENIED. Plaintiff has at least three non-Delaware lawyers. Simply because one of them has a trial scheduled on December 9th is not a reason to change the date of the Markman. There is plenty of time …
View

Some Helpful Rulings on 30(b)(6) Objections

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 22, 2021
Discovery Dispute Discovery

Yesteday, Judge Stark issued an opinion on various discovery disputes and objections in Natera, Inc. v. ArcherDX, Inc., C.A. No. 20-125-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 21, 2021). Here are a few helpful nuggets from the opinion:

He declined to order defendants to respond to 30(b)(6) topics like the following, except for identifying "all persons substantively involved" because that language is "vague and overbroad":

The research, development, design, testing and validation of each of Your Accused Products, including when they were developed and identity of all persons substantively involved in their design and development.

He ordered defendants to produce a corporate witness on the following topic, including an order to describe contemplated and future filings with the …

View

October Update on Upcoming D. Del. Jury Trials

Emily S. DiBenedetto, Oct. 11, 2021
COVID-19 Trial Calendar

Upcoming October Jury Trials

Of the six jury trials planned for October, four remain on the schedule as of now, including one patent and one trademark action. One patent jury trial was postponed for a second time this month due to the COVID-19 travel ban.

  • 10/12/2021: USA v. Crocker, C.A. 17-10-LPS (D. Del.): This criminal case was originally scheduled for a jury trial before Judge Stark on October 5, but was postponed at the last minute, likely due to a change in counsel. The trial is now set for October 12.
  • 10/18/2021: Parkell v. Frederick, C.A. 15-718-SB (D. Del.): The parties in this prisoner civil rights case agreed to jury trial before …
View

Take What You Want and Pay for It

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 9, 2021
Fees

alexander-mils-lCPhGxs7pww-unsplash.jpg
Girl holding American Dollar Bills, Alexander Mils, Unsplash

Those with a habit of perusing these posts (thank you, persons of class and distinction) may recall the interesting case of Almirall, LLC v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., C.A No. 20-1373-LPS, D.I. 50 (D. Del. July 13, 2021) where Judge Stark granted a 12(c) motion after ruling that the plaintiff had waived various arguments by failing to raise them until oral argument.

I, for one, expected that to be the last we heard of that case for some time. Last Friday, however, Judge Stark granted Almirall's motion to amend the complaint to reassert these same claims, based on new allegations similar to those the Court previously found waived. Judge …

View

Brief It Or Lose It

Nathan R. Hoeschen, July 22, 2021
Preclusion Reply Briefs

Sometimes Arguments Solve Nothing
Sometimes Arguments Solve Nothing Sarah Kilian, Unsplash

It's uncommon to see the Court dismiss an ANDA case before trial. The patents are usually grounded enough to avoid easy 101 issues, infringement is as likely to be conceded as disputed, and any other serious invalidity contentions are normally simply reserved for trial (none of our Delaware judges allow for SJ motions in ANDA cases without leave).

That being the case, Judge Stark's dismissal of the complaint in Almirall, LLC v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., C.A No. 20-1373-LPS, D.I. 50 (D. Del. July 13, 2021) ("Almirall II"), via a 12(c) motion is worthy of comment merely because it dismissed an ANDA complaint on the pleadings before Markman. …

View

Claim Construction: Quasi-Intrinsic Evidence and Carryover Disclaimers

Jeff Castellano, July 9, 2021
Claim Construction

Judge Stark issued a claim construction ruling in a large multi-district ANDA case last week, touching on interesting questions regarding the nature of intrinsic evidence and the impact of disclaimers on child applications.

The parties to In re Entresto (SacubitriWalsartan) Patent Litigation, C.A. No. 20-2930-LPS presented the Court with just a few issues for resolution.

First, the Court considered whether independent claims of two of the patents-in-suit directed to administration of a "combination" of active ingredients should be limited to administering those ingredients as "two separate components“…

View

Final Score Card for the March 12th § 101 Day Hearing

Andrew E. Russell, March 22, 2021
§ 101 Days § 101

On Friday, Chief Judge Stark released his opinion summarizing his bench rulings from his most recent Section 101 day. This is how the patents fared:

Content Square v. Quantum Metric, Inc., C.A. No. 20-832-LPS (D. Del.)

In the first case, Content Square, the Court invalidated the claims of 2 of the 5 asserted patents.

Not this kind of web crawling.
Not this kind of web crawling. Michael Anfang, Unsplash

The invalidated patents related to "heat map patents," which relate to displaying heat maps of web browsing data. These include U.S. Patent Nos. 10,063,645 and 10,079,737.

The third patent, which was not invalidated, related to "creating multiple versions of a website to determine users' preferences." Interestingly, the Court held …

View
Newer
Older

Archive