I will, in fact, die on this hill—at least until something from the Court shows I'm wrong.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Last year we had a post entitled "Use This One Simple Trick to Not Get Your Summary Judgment Motion Instantly Denied." That post related to motions before judges who require a concise statement of facts with summary judgment motions. The "one simple trick" was that, rather than including a long list of atomic facts like "x said this at deposition" and "lines x:xx - y:yy of the patent specification say z," you state the actual material fact that you are relying on and cite those atomic facts as support for the broader fact.
One motion, two motion, three motion, fourAI-Generated, displayed with permission
Hello again dear friends and readers. In the time the blog has been on hiatus I have built a fence 20 feet high and 20 feet long, gained 400 ELO in chess, and seen many old friends for the first time in ages. But the blog is back, and those days are behind me as I feed more content into its insatiable maw. So let's get right into today's case.
You'll all be aware that a couple of our judges require litigants to rank their summary judgment motions. For instance, and relevant to today's case. Judge Williams' form scheduling order states that "The Court will review the party’s summary …
Drafting a proposed order can be a fraught exercise. It's easy to leave off some portion of the relief you really want, and then face a later argument that its been waived. That's why you'll often see proposed orders that just make anodyne statements that the motion is granted.
It is hereby ordered that the Motion is GRANTED errr, FORTHWITH and errr, FOREVERMOREAI-Generated, displayed with permission
But a well-drafted proposed order can be a source of great power as well. Such was the lesson of Yesterday's opinion in Attentive Mobile Inc. v. Stodge, Inc., d/b/a/ Postscript, C.A. No. 23-87-CJB, D.I. 728 (D. Del. Aug. 14, 2025) (Mem. Order).
Postscript moved for summary judgment "ON ATTENTIVE’S CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ887, ʼ897, AND ʼ074 PATENTS." Judge Burke ultimately granted the motion, at which point the parties disputed whether the motion encompassed claims for induced infringement, or only direct infringement.
Judge Burke found that the motion covered both, citing the unequivocal statements in the proposed order Postscript sought "entry of judgment in Postscript's favor that US Patent Nos. [whatever] are not infringed."
In the Court’s view, this language—i.e., language asserting that the Motion was putting at issue all of Attentive’s “claims of infringement”—was important. There are various ways that an accused infringer in a patent litigation can be said to have engaged in “infringement” of a patent: e.g., via direct infringement, indirect infringement (which includes induced infringement, at issue here, and contributory infringement), joint infringement and/or willful infringement. If an accused infringer files a motion that facially seeks summary judgment on all of the patentee’s “claims of infringement” against it—and if in that case the patentee has a claim of induced infringement—then the patentee should be on alert that its induced infringement claim is among the “claims of infringement” that is being put at issue by that motion.
A very blurry picture of a claim from one of the asserted patents, highlighting roughly the text that the patentee seemed to seek summary judgment on.RE47,031
It's common for parties to not dispute the presence of some portions of a patent claim in an accused product. For example, in a patent for a "computing device" with software meeting certain limitations, the defendant may not dispute that the presence of a "computing device"—but might vigorously dispute that the software it runs meets the remaining claim limitations.
In most patent cases, the presence of at least some portion of the claim limitations in the accused product is not disputed—and often, quite a few limitations are not disputed. But the parties regularly …
Pictured: a francophone. also, its good to know that chatgppt doesn't know how a rotary phone works (4,b,c,?)AI-Generated, displayed with permission
As a devoted francophile (and middling francophone), I'm ever intrigued by the concept of rank. One cannot watch the plays of Moliere or the films of Renoir without getting a sense for the pervasive role that rank plays in every aspect of society, amongst both the proud and the petty.
This of course brings me to the place I most commonly rub against the rigid hierarchies of rank—summary judgment motions. Long time readers will of course be aware that Judges Connolly and Williams require litigants to rank their summary judgment motions, so that once one is denied, the …
When it comes to summary judgment and Daubert motions, the local rules here in D. Del. set a limit for the number of pages, but don't set a limit for the number of motions. Our judges' form scheduling orders for patent actions address this, and set length limits for brifing dispositive motions (and sometimes for combined SJ/Daubert briefing).
Sometimes, however, parties end up with scheduling orders that place no limits on the number of motions. In that case, in theory, a party can file as many SJ motions as it wants under the rules, with 20 pages for each motion. In practice, that may not pan out so well.
Back in 2021, Chief Judge Connolly instituted a new ranking procedure for summary judgment motions in his cases, in which parties rank their SJ motions and, if the top-ranked motion is denied, all lower-ranked motions are denied as well. The Court later expanded that procedure to encompass Daubert motions as well. Judge Williams has adopted it (for SJ motions only), and Judge Noreika has experimented with it—although at least one other judge has declined to adopt it.
To put the procedures in context, judges on the Court have long applied various measures to control the workload generated by summary judgment motions. Former Chief Judge Sleet, for example, required parties to request leave before filing summary judgment …
Earlier this month we talked about the required structure for briefs in the District of Delaware. As to the required "argument" section, I said "We all know what this is." Maybe I was wrong.
An "Argument" Section That Wasn't
On Friday, the Court denied a motion for summary judgment for violating the local rule on briefing structure, because it's "argument" section failed to conform to the local rule on briefing structure, LR 7.1.3(c)(1)(f), and had exceeded the page limits for briefing. Roger P. Jackson, M.D. v. NuVasive, Inc., C.A. No. 21-53-RGA, D.I. 443 (D. Del. Mar. 14, 2025).
Basically, the patentee moved for summary judgment of infringement. But, rather than laying …
Looks like someone got a hole in one. On Friday, Judge Hall issued a relatively short memorandum order granting a § 101 summary judgment motion, and it neatly encapsulates what § 101 analyses seem to be trending towards.
The Court found that the 10 asserted claims, across three patents, are all directed to a simple abstract idea:
I agree with Netflix that each and every one of the asserted claims is directed to “the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and automatically displaying content (e.g., a playlist of Internet content).” . . . The asserted claims contain a lot of words, and some of those words sound complicated.[] But what the claims cover is not complicated. …
I don't talk about it much on the blog, but my other hobby (beyond writing about litigation and the District of Delaware for funsies, photography, and having an absurd-by-today's-standards number of children) is writing and speaking about AI and the law. I've been speaking about AI issues on panels at conferences since 2018. Most recently, I moderated a Sedona Conference panel about Copyright and AI.
In the context of copyright and AI, the question of whether training an AI model on copyrighted content is fair use is basically life-or-death for a lot of current AI models. Big generative models like ChatGPT are (typically) trained on giant masses of data collected from books, …
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.
