[Note from Andrew: Please welcome Jen Welsh, former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Delaware! Jen is visiting to write our first-ever guest post, below—thank you, Jen!]
I’m Jen Welsh. I was a prosecutor in the United States Attorney’s Office in Delaware for many years, and now I’m a partner at Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan, a firm that handles investigations, white collar defense, and complex litigation matters.
You’ve probably seen me in the courthouse, kicking you all out of a courtroom so that we could handle a sentencing on a break in the middle of your Markman hearing. When I saw that a District of Delaware civil case was turning …
Typically, final judgment is the end of the road for a patent case. It's right there in the name. Sometimes, however, it is just a further maneuver in a forever war which the parties have little hope of resolving in their lifetimes.
There are, of course, only limited legal avenues for keeping the fires burning after final judgment. Today's case (oddly, the same as yesterday's case) deals with contempt.
The prompt was "the very embodiment of contempt." I think the bot has some personal issues to resolve.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
As we discussed yesterday, BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Alvogen Pb Research & Development LLC, C.A. No. 18-1395-CFC-CJB (D. Del.) had proceeded to judgment years ago, with the plaintiff generally prevailing.
Like most ANDA cases, the judgment contained a clause enjoining the defendant from making/selling/using the "ANDA Products" until after the expiration of the infringed patents. D.I. 308.
Years later, the defendant filed a new ANDA based on the same listed drug, apparently reformulated to design around the relevant patents. The Plaintiff, in addition to filing a new ANDA case against this ANDA, brought a motion to enforce the judgment.
Judge Connolly denied the motion, finding that it was procedureally improper:
I need not decide whether the products covered by ANDA No. 220582 are an "ANDA Product" covered by paragraph 7's injunction because I agree that the motion is procedurally improper, and I will deny it for that reason . . .
I agree that to the extent BDSI seeks to enforce the injunction in paragraph 7, it must do so by way of a contempt motion. An injunction is "an equitable decree compelling obedience under the threat of contempt[.]" And thus "injunctions are enforced through the district court's civil contempt power." Accordingly, "[i]f a party contends that another party is violating an injunction, the aggrieved party should move the court for an order to show cause why the other party should not be held in civil contempt."
D.I. 423 at 9-10 (internal citations omitted).
It's not clear from the opinion whether the door is technically open for a further motion for contempt. However, given that the Court took the parties to task for the "waste of judicial resources" and "obstreperous behavior by both sides to a degree I have rarely experienced as a judge" I would not be at all surprised if the plaintiff just let it lie and continued with the new case. Only time shall tell.
When we last wrote about Mavexar, Chief Judge Connolly had held a civil contempt hearing after he ordered the sole member of Backertop, a Mavexar-related LLC, to appear in-person in Delaware and she failed to appear (she instead initiated a head-on challenge to the authority of the Court). She likewise failed to appear for her contempt hearing.
Today, the Court issued its opinion and order, holding the witness in contempt. It handily dispatched with each of the witness' arguments against the hearing.
It easily rejected their first argument—that the Court lacks jurisdiction after the entity, Backertop Licensing LLC, dismissed it's complaint. The Court reiterated the same ruling it made last time.
Next, the Court easily rejected the idea that civil contempt is "meant to benefit the complainant," citing multiple U.S. Supreme Court opinions to the contrary. It also rejected the idea that a party can re-litigate the underlying order in context of a contempt proceeding.
I found the Court's discussion of the alleged Fifth Amendment violation interesting, particularly when the Court attempts to identify exactly which Fifth Amendment right it could possibly have ...
We're back! Our trial was a success, Nate is back from his travels, and things have cooled down enough for us to resume regular posts this week.
While we were tied up, there was some progress in the Mavexar cases. If you recall, Chief Judge Connolly had ordered the sole member of Backertop, a Mavexar-related LLC, to appear in-person in Delaware to answer for the entities' potential fraud on the Court. She objected, stating that she would not appear.
Since then, the July 20 hearing occurred, and as promised she did not appear—although her counsel, and counsel for Backertop, did show up. The transcript for that hearing is below.
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
