A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Case Narrowing

In Resolving Case Narrowing Dispute, Judge Williams Holds that a Prior Art Product Is a Single Reference, Even If Described by Multiple Documents

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 4, 2025
Prior Art Case Narrowing

A patent figure. It has an indisputable date, a specific technical diagram, and a description. How much clearer can you get?
A patent figure. It has an indisputable date, a specific technical diagram, and a description. How much clearer can you get? U.S. Pat. No. 777,777 ("Hat-Clasp")

On Friday, Judge Williams resolved a case narrowing dispute in Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Execla Pharma Sciences, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1233-GBW (D. Del.).

The parties disputed the numerical limits for case narrowing. The Court adopted a proposed limit of 4 obviousness combinations per claim, with no more than eight combinations total, and 10 total prior art references. The patentee offered to narrow to 7 asserted claims.

The Court noted that the order was consistent with its precedent, in which it allowed no more than 10 claims, 10 prior art references, and 20 prior art arguments.

The Court also addressed what counts as a "reference." The patentee tried to limit the accused infringer so that every document counts as its own reference, even if the asserted obviousness combination is a prior art device, product, or system itself rather than the documents that describe that system.

The Court rejected that idea, and held that ...

View

Court Declines to Strike § 282 Notice Disclosing Nearly 200 Prior Art References, Despite Stipulated Narrowing

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 2, 2024
§ 282 Case Narrowing

Some home-cooked stuffing. Apparently the photo in our Thanksgiving post was uncooked stuffing.
Some home-cooked stuffing. Apparently the photo in our Thanksgiving post was uncooked stuffing. Andrew E. Russell, displayed with permission

We're back! I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. As we'd hoped, the Court issued some interesting decisions last week, including a denial of a motion to strike in Lindis Biotech, GmbH v. Amgen, Inc., C.A. No. 22-35-GBW (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2024).

In that case, the parties had agreed to a case narrowing schedule that required the accused infringer to cut back to 6 prior art references per patent by 14 days before the pretrial order, not including references used to show the state of the art, the knowledge of one skilled in the art, …

View

Judge Andrews Holds That, Contrary to Prior Case, Claims Dropped Due to Claim Narrowing Should Be Dismissed with Prejudice

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 30, 2024
Dismissal With Prejudice

AI-generated depiction of Judge Andrews putting down zombie claims for good.
AI-generated depiction of Judge Andrews putting down zombie claims for good. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Former Chief Judge Sleet used to frequently say that "there is no such thing as the law of the district." Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., No. 17-1407-GMS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9544, at *8 n.3 (D. Del. Jan. 22, 2018) (cleaned up). In other words, one district court judge's ruling is not binding on another.

We saw that yesterday, when Judge Andrews held that claims dropped due to claim narrowing are dropped with prejudice, and recognized that another of our judges had previously held the opposite on similar facts.

In Exeltis USA, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., C.A. No. 22-434-RGA (D. …

View

Patent Claims Withdrawn Just Minutes Before Trial Are Gone for Good

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 26, 2024
JMOL Trial

"Your honor, we'd like to drop most of our claims." "Ok, but you're not picking them back up." AI-Generated, displayed with permission

True D. Del. patent litigators know that, no matter which side you're on, you're going to have to narrow your claims and defenses before trial. It's just unwise and unworkable to go into a five-day trial with 100 claims, or with 30 prior art references and hundreds (or millions) of potential obviousness combinations. There isn't time to cover it all.

That said, sometimes the parties in patent cases delay case narrowing for a long time. And while the Court will often narrowing, it doesn't do that in every case. Instead, judges sometimes take the approach that …

View

Court Holds That Good Cause Standard Applies to Late Election of Asserted Prior Art, Rather Than the Forgiving Pennypack Factors

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 13, 2024
FRCP 16 Pennypack

Narrowing
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

A perennial question in disputes about late disclosures is whether the demanding FRCP 16 "good cause" standard applies, which hinges on diligence, or whether the more forgiving Pennypack factors apply.

When it comes to case narrowing, there seems to be a building trend that the good cause standard applies, not the Pennypack factors. We've seen that multiple times when it comes to a plaintiff's decision to drop claims, and on Wednesday, Judge Burke issued a detailed opinion finding that good cause is likewise required to revise a defendant's election of prior art references.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 22-1447-CJB (D. Del.), the Court ordered the defendant to cut …

View

Asserting a New Reference Is Not "Narrowing" the Invalidity Contentions, Even If the Overall Number of References Goes Down

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 12, 2024
Case Narrowing Contentions

For some reason, one of the references stands out...
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Judge Bryson unsealed a discovery dispute opinion last week in Impossible Foods Inc. v. Motif Foodworks, Inc., C.A. No. 22-311-WCB (D. Del.), addressing a motion to supplement infringement contentions after the deadline for final contentions. The patentee argued that it had good cause to supplement because it did so quickly after the accused infringer added a totally new prior art reference in their final invalidity contentions.

There are a couple of interesting things about the opinion, but I wanted to call out one in particular.

The case included a deadlines for final contentions, and then for case narrowing, with the defendant to drop to a list of 10 references. The defendant initially cut …

View

Watch What You Agree to! Court Holds Plaintiff to Agreement in Scheduling Order That "Hypothetically Allows Defendant to Propose Millions of [Invalidity] Theories"

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 19, 2024
Scheduling Order Case Narrowing

Watch out for what may be in that draft scheduling order...
Watch out for what may be in that draft scheduling order... AI Generated, displayed with permission

In International Business Machines Corporation v. Zynga Inc., C.A. No. 22-590-GBW (D. Del.), the parties agreed in the scheduling order to a rather vague set of case narrowing provisions:

On November 30, 2023, Plaintiff shall perform a first narrowing of the number of asserted claims. On December 7, 2023, Defendant shall perform a first narrowing of the number of asserted invalidity references.
. . . On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff shall perform a second narrowing of the number of asserted claims. On March 5, 2024, Defendant shall perform a second narrowing of the number of asserted invalidity …
View

Chief Judge Connolly Dismisses Claims on Patents Withdrawn Prior to ANDA Trial with Prejudice

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 24, 2022
Trial ANDA

"Do you think 11 patents might be more than we need? Nah" Maciej Ruminkiewicz, Unsplash

Back in May, we wrote about an order by Chief Judge Connolly directing an ANDA plaintiff to cut back to 4 claims prior to trial, or potentially face a more difficult road for injunctive relief.

Plaintiff cut back to 6 claims, apparently dropping five patents from the case, and the bench trial proceeded.

Last month, Chief Judge Connolly issued his post-trial opinion regarding infringement and invalidity, and directed the parties to enter a proposed order. The parties ended up disputing what should happen to those dropped claims from the five dropped patents in the final judgment:

The proposals differ with respect to the disposition …
View

How Do You Drop Claims in a Patent Action, and Are They Withdrawn with Prejudice?

Andrew E. Russell, May 27, 2022
Claim Narrowing Case Narrowing

Drop
Andrew E. Russell, CC BY 2.0

In my experience, parties in patent actions in the District of Delaware (and elsewhere) routinely drop claims in the lead up to trial. "Dropping claims" includes withdrawing asserted claims (e.g. "Claim 1"), whole asserted patents (e.g., "the '123 patent"), infringement contentions (e.g., "direct infringement" or "infringement by product A"), and other claims (including non-patent claims).

Most often, in practice, this is accomplished via an e-mail to the other side or, if the parties want something on the docket, by stipulation. I don't know of a case where the Court here insisted that a plaintiff not drop claims (of course, a defendant may also have counterclaims).

Are the Claims Withdrawn with Prejudice?

But parties rarely …

View

Here's What Has Changed in Judge Burke's New Form Scheduling Order

Andrew E. Russell, March 23, 2022
Concise Statement of Facts Case Narrowing

New
Nick Fewings, Unsplash

Yesterday, Magistrate Judge Burke released a new form scheduling order. There are redlines embedded below.

Here is a quick rundown of some of the changes in the patent scheduling order:

  • Added from Judge Andrews' scheduling order:
    • A requirement for plaintiffs to provide licenses and settlement agreements as part of their disclosures
    • A prompt in the scheduling order for the parties to consider a staged reduction of asserted claims and prior art, before and after claim construction (this comes up a lot)
  • Added from Judges Connolly, Noreika, and/or Hall's scheduling orders:
    • A requirement to include chart at the end listing the deadlines all together (convenient!)
    • A Concise Statement of Facts requirement for summary judgment
    • He …
View
Older

Archive