A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


CJB
The Honorable Christopher J. Burke

Defendant Succeeds in Limiting Claims Based on the Specification

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 3, 2022
Claim Construction

View from a fisheye lens
View from a fisheye lens Kevin Grieve, Unsplash

Defendants often want to import limitations from the specification to the claims. It only takes one missing claim element per claim to defeat an allegation of patent infringement (setting aside DOE). And the language of patent specifications is often narrower than the claims themselves, providing ample opportunities to find limitations.

Federal Circuit precedent, of course, says that the Court should avoid importing limitations from the specification into the claims—but using the specification to interpret the meaning of a claim is OK. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As countless courts have recognized, that is a fine line.

As a result, defendants' early-case strategy often …

View

Don't Short-Change the Representative Claims Argument in a § 101 Motion—Part II

Andrew E. Russell, July 19, 2022
Representative Claim § 101

Legos make for good representative claim analogies.
Hello I'm Nik, Unsplash

We've talk before about how accused infringers so often give short shrift to the representative claims issue in § 101 briefing, and how it deserves a lot of attention if you want to prevail on a § 101 motion to dismiss.

Judge Burke issued an R&R yesterday, following his recent § 101 day, invalidating one claim of an asserted patent—but declining to hold 27 other claims valid, citing the accused infringer's poor representative claims argument:

I will note that I [have] been reviewing Section 101 motions like these for most of my entire 11 years as a judge[;] during that time, I have resolved many, many such motions. But I cannot recall ever having seen …
View

Passing the 101 Day Torch

Nathan R. Hoeschen, July 14, 2022
101 Day

andy-kogl-rs4s5-gWWy8-unsplash.jpg
Burn for something, that enlight and warm others. Passion., Andy Kogl, Unsplash

The 101 day has been the highlight of the Delaware patent law hearing calendar for many years now. It's an all-day no-holds-barred marathon where questions can come to any party at any time. And the best part is, you can look forward to a decision at the end of the day. It is our Super Bowl and our debutante ball all in one, where Delaware's brightest stars go to see, and be seen.

Naturally, I always attend.

I had been a bit worried that the practice would not survive Judge Stark's departure. Although other Judges have adopted the practice to some extent, Judge Stark (the progenitor of the practice) had always been the most reliable host for the event.

Judge Burke Revives the Practice with his own Flair

But my fears were laid to rest last week when ...

View

Can a "Patent Law Expert" Testify at Trial? Sometimes.

Andrew E. Russell, June 13, 2022
Expert Witness Exclusion

The Federal Judicial Center patent video. I find it exciting to watch, for a moment, because it reminds me the start of a jury trial...
The Federal Judicial Center patent video. I find it exciting to watch, for a moment, because it reminds me the start of a jury trial... Federal Judicial Center

Every once in a while, parties will offer a "patent law expert" with opinions about patent office proceedings, such as patent prosecution. Often, smart opposing counsel will move to exclude that testimony, and it's not unusual for the Court to grant those motions.

A decision last week reminded of this issue. Late last week, Judge Burke granted a motion to preclude some expert testimony about patent prosecution, and excluded expert testimony regarding the patent examiner and plaintiffs' state of mind:

ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the portion of Plaintiffs' Daubert motion …
View

System Prior Art Strikes Again

Andrew E. Russell, May 24, 2022
Expert Discovery Pennypack

Copyright Symbol
Andrew E. Russell

We've talked before about how asserting invalidity based on system prior art (as opposed to written publications, for example) can be tricky, because accused infringers can face all kinds of sometimes-unexpected difficulties with proving up the prior art.

Parties often get into sticky evidentiary questions about exactly what kinds of evidence are sufficient to show that the relevant prior art was on sale before the priority date, and how the prior art functioned—and whether that all of that evidence has authenticity or hearsay issues.

On Friday, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a long oral report and recommendation to grant summary judgment of no invalidity based on a system prior art reference. In the case, the defendants relied …

View

Narrowing Is Inevitable. The Funnel Cannot Be Stopped.

Nathan R. Hoeschen, May 19, 2022
Claim Narrowing

The Greatest of Funnels
John Matychuk, Unsplash

More and More, case narrowing has become a fact of life in Delaware. What was once an ad-hoc process recorded in a handful of unpublished orders has become more formal, and the various by-laws and codicils that govern it are congealing into something knowable, citable, and inevitable.

But we're not there yet, and even I can still be surprised by a novel ruling on the intricacies of the process. Such was the case in Tonal Systems, Inc. v. iFIT Inc., C.A. No. 20-1197-VAC-CJB, D.I. 100 (D. Del. May 16, 2022). Following an earlier dispute on the schedule for narrowing, The parties there were set to narrow of both claims and prior art, following the disclosure of initial infringement and invalidity contentions. So far, normal.

The wrinkle was that the narrowing schedule left more than 30 days between the service of Defendant's initial invalidity contentions and the deadline by which they had to narrow their prior art. They thus took the clever step of serving a rog requesting plaintiffs validity contentions -- a response to which would have been due before Defendant had to pick their prior art arguments. Plaintiffs objected, stating "[t]he Court ordered [Defendant] to narrow its Section 102/103 invalidity case to no more than 50 prior art references

View

Court Compels Defendant to Provide Witness on 30(b)(6) Topics Even If "Many (If Not Most, or All)" Questions Likely to Draw Privilege-Related Instructions Not to Answer

Andrew E. Russell, April 29, 2022
MTC Motion to Compel

Illustration of the stone wall plaintiff will face when they actually depose this person.
Illustration of the stone wall plaintiff will face when they actually depose this person. eberhard grossgasteiger, Unsplash

In The United States of America v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2103-MN (D. Del.), plaintiff moved to compel defendant to produce a 30(b)(6) witness on various topics, including on "[a]ll bases" for certain statements by defendant's CEO, including statements about a decision not to challenge the validity of certain patents.

As to two of those topics, the defendant argued in its responsive letter that the CEO's statements were "based entirely on communications and memoranda prepared by Gilead’s in-house counsel and outside counsel," which are privileged. The Court generally agreed:

[T]he Court definitely acknowledges Defendants' point[, ]i.e., …
View

Refusal to Narrow the Number of Asserted Claims Results in Reduced Relief in Narrowing Invalidity Contentions

Emily DiBenedetto, April 25, 2022
Claim Narrowing Contentions

Upturned Nose
Zayn Shah, Unsplash

As we’ve said before, sufficiency of each parties’ contentions can vary a bit by judge, and holdings are difficult to research because they usually appear in discovery dispute teleconference transcripts that are not posted to the dockets.

However, we saw a written decision issued by Judge Burke last week that illuminated one of the Court’s potential approaches to a dispute over invalidity contentions. The Court proposed that, if Plaintiff would agree to narrow its claims, the Court would require defendants to reduce the number of combinations. When Plaintiffs refused, they still received relief, but it wasn’t as strong or as specific as the relief they might have gotten had they adopted the Court’s proposal.

Plaintiffs complained that Defendants’ response to a contention interrogatory was unduly vague and insufficiently fulsome. The interrogatory sought invalidity contentions under § 103 obviousness, and the response incorporated Defendants’ Joint Initial Invalidity Contentions, so the Court focused on the Initial Invalidity Contention document itself for its analysis.

The Court found that the Initial Invalidity Contentions were sufficient in most respects:

In general, they provide real detail, including significant specificity as to ...
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

Judge Burke Declines to Find Non-Infringement in Daubert Context; Gives Thoughts on Proliferation of Summary Judgment Motions

Andrew E. Russell, March 15, 2022
Summary Judgment Non-Infringement

These dandelions are popping up like SJ motions!
These dandelions are popping up like SJ motions! Jonne Huotari, Unsplash

Today, in Personal Audio v. Google, C.A. No. 17-1751-CFC-CJB (D. Del.), Judge Burke addressed an apparent request for the Court to find non-infringement based on a claim construction issue, which came up for the first time in the context of a Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony.

The Court expressed some initial sympathy for the non-infringement argument, suggesting it may have had some merit:

[T]he Court notes more generally that the issue underlying Defendant’s Motion is Defendant’s assertion that the claim construction for “sequencing file,” . . . requires that “you can’t use a copy of the sequencing file to control playback and respon[d] to …
View
Newer
Older

Archive