A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: IPR

Court Denies Defendant's Request to Stay Patent Action After Lead Counsel's Head Injury

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 27, 2024
IPR Stay

Best wishes and get well soon.
Niklas Ohlrogge, Unsplash

Visiting Judge Murphy decided a stay motion in a patent action yesterday, and included language that could be helpful to any patent plaintiffs who are opposing an early stay.

In Ignite Enterprise Software Solutions, LLC v. NGData, US Inc., C.A. No. 23-1209 (D. Del.), the defendant moved for a 30-day stay after its lead counsel suffered a head injury in a car accident.

The Court moved shockingly fast (for a busy Court), requesting that the plaintiff respond within two days, and then ruling on the motion the same day the plaintiff responded—just two days after the initial paper.

The Court denied the stay due to prejudice to the patentee:

Defendant seeks a 30-day …
View

Court Holds That Using Prior Art That Was Considered in Post-Grant Proceedings "Opens the Door" for Patentee to Put Evidence of Those Proceedings Before the Jury

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2024
Trial Procedure Motion in Limine

When the Court says
When the Court says "unless they open the door," typically you'd want to stay far away from that door. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

There is a lot of precedent in D. Del. regarding when the parties can and can't present evidence from post-grant patent proceedings such as IPRs. Most often, the Court holds that such evidence is inadmissible or constrained, to prevent it from unduly influencing the jury. "We already won this once" can be a powerful argument.

Last week, Judge Williams issued an opinion taking the usual position as to most evidence. But the Court also held that simply asserting a prior art reference that was raised in post-grant proceedings opens the door for the patentee to introduce …

View

What's New in Judge Hall's Revised Form Scheduling Order for Patent Cases?

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 5, 2024
PGR Scheduling Order

Scheduling Order

Last month, after her elevation to the bench as a district judge, Judge Hall issued a revised form scheduling order.

I think it's worth paying attention to what changes, even if the changes may not directly apply in your case, because it shows what the judges are focused on and thinking about.

Plus, it usually doesn't hurt to comply with a judge's newest procedures even if they are not required by the (outdated) scheduling order in your case.

So, what's new?

Stating the Meaning of "Plain and Ordinary Meaning"

Judge Hall adopted a set of additional requirements for joint claim construction briefs. Like all of our current judges, she uses Judge Andrews' procedure of a joint claim construction brief. But …

View

The Tale of Claims 9 and 9, Part II: Court Says No, You Can't Tell the Jury That the PTAB Invalidated the Independent Claims

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 31, 2024
Motion in Limine MIL

Shh. They're not
Shh. They're not "invalid," they're "canceled" and "in the public domain" Kristina Flour, Unsplash

Yesterday Nate wrote about Judge Bryson's opinion that a plaintiff was not bound by its prior allegation that a product infringed two claims, because plaintiff's statement deals with an issue of law, not fact.

Today, I think it's worth discussing another aspect of the same decision, where Judge Bryson addressed a motion by plaintiff to preclude the defendant from discussing the same two invalid claims, claims 9 & 9 of the two asserted patents.

The the PTAB canceled claims 9 and 9 in an IPR, and plaintiff now asserts only claims that depend on those two canceled claims. It moved to prevent defendant from …

View

Judge Kennelly Gives PTAB Claim Constructions Little Weight: "Not All intrinsic Evidence Is Created Equal"

Andrew E. Russell, July 22, 2022
IPR Claim Construction

Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois Pedro Lastra, Unsplash

In an opinion today, visiting Judge Kennelly (N.D. Ill.) rejected the idea that an accused infringer could bring an IPR, receive a claim construction in that IPR, and then argue that that construction is "intrinsic evidence" that, by itself, merits adopting the construction in the district court case.

In XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 18-1810-MFK, D.I. 293 (D. Del. July 22, 2022), the PTAB had proposed and applied its own constructions for the claims, and accused infringer Intel ultimately lost the IPR. Intel then appealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed without reaching the merits of the claim constructions.

While the IPR was pending, Intel argued that the …

View

Judge Noreika Chooses a Side on IPR Estoppel: No Estoppel of Prior Art Products

Andrew E. Russell, July 12, 2022
IPR Estoppel Estoppel

Split
Bannon Morrissy, Unsplash

IPR estoppel can be kind of terrifying as an accused infringer in a patent action. The statute says that an accused infringer may not assert invalidity on a ground that it could have raised in the IPR; but you can't raise product prior art, so product prior art should be safe, right?

Nope. Courts have sometimes held that product prior art may still be estopped, if there is patent or written prior art that is sufficiently similar. See, e.g., Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Schrader Int’l, 432 F. Supp. 3d 448, 453 (D. Del. 2020) (holding defendant estopped from asserting product art where “all the relevant features” of the art were in a printed publication that could have been raised in an IPR).

As Judge Stark notes in Wasica, courts have gone both ways on this, with some estopping arguments based on product art where similar written or patent art could have been raised in an IPR, and others permitting those arguments.

On Friday, Judge Noreika chose a side in this split: no estoppel for prior art products ...

View

Judge Fallon Stays Action Involving IPR on Just One of Two Asserted Patents

Andrew E. Russell, June 10, 2022
Stay Pending IPR IPR

There go the patentee's chances to oppose a stay....
Saad Chaudhry, Unsplash

In an oral order today, Judge Fallon stayed an action where there was an IPR on just one of two asserted patents:

ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed Defendant's letter motion to stay the case pending issuance of the PTAB's final written decision in the IPR proceedings . . . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Defendant's motion to stay is GRANTED because Defendant has satisfied the three stay factors. See IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 18-452-WCB et al., 2019 WL 3943058, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019). First, the stay will simplify the issues for trial because the PTAB's final written decision is likely to resolve prior art-based invalidity …
View

Stay Motion Denial Results in Guidance for the Parties—and for the PTAB

Andrew E. Russell, March 9, 2022
Motion to Stay IPR

Stay!
Stay! Taylor Kopel, Unsplash

Pre-institution stays can be tough to achieve, but they are sometimes granted. Even when denied, though, a pre-institution stay may have other benefits, including that the Court may be willing to offer guidance on what to do—and what may happen—if the IPR is instituted.

An order from Magistrate Judge Burke on Friday is a good example. In eBuddy Technologies B.V. v. LinkedIn Corporation, C.A. No. 20-1501-RGA-CJB (D. Del.), the defendant moved for a pre-institution stay pending IPR. Judge Buke denied it:

ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion to stay the case pending resolution of [un-instituted] inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings . . . , hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew in light of the following: (1) For reasons it has previously expressed, the Court is not typically inclined to grant a stay in favor of IPR proceedings when a case has been moving forward for a while and when the PTAB has not yet determined whether to initiate review of any of the patents-in-suit. . . . .; (2) That outcome seems particularly ...
View

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

Emily 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

Your IPR Succeeded? Congrats! Now Go to Trial on Infringement, But You're Estopped from Claiming Invalidity

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 8, 2022
Collateral Estoppel IPR

PTAB trailhead
PTAB trailhead Joshua Sukoff, Unsplash

During some research the other day, I came across the below order that Judge Noreika issued last summer.

A defendant had moved in limine to exclude three of the four asserted claims of a patent from trial, after it prevailed on those claims in an IPR. Easy motion, right?

No. Judge Noreika held that, under Federal Circuit precedent, collateral estoppel does not prevent plaintiff from asserting those claims at trial until the decision is final. And the decision is not final until the appeal is exhausted:

Federal Circuit case law suggests that an IPR decision does not have preclusive effect until that decision is either affirmed or the parties waive their appeal …
View
Older

Archive