The big apple: The home of the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and (apparently) precedent permitting late-served cross-motions for summary judgment.Michael Discenza, Unsplash
In Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd., C.A. No. 21-339-RGA (D. Del.), plaintiff moved for summary judgment of patent eligibility, and defendant filed an answering brief.
At the same time as its answering brief, however, defendant filed a late "cross-motion" for summary judgment, asking the Court to not only deny plaintiff's motion, but to grant summary judgment of ineligibility. Defendant devoted about 9 pages of its 40-answering brief to arguing against plaintiff's motion and in favor of its own affirmative "cross-motion" for a determination of ineligibility.
Today Judge Burke unsealed an opinion with a great discussion of what it takes to make a "prima facie" showing, at least as to the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege (that's something you don't see every day).
According to the Court, the rules require it to hold a hearing on the crime/fraud exception, but only if the plaintiff first makes a prima facie showing that the exception applies.
The Court first reviewed plaintiff's evidence, and found that plaintiff had showed that the exception applied. The Court also found, however, that defendant's additional, different evidence that showed that the exception did not apply. On the whole, the Court sided with the defendant, finding that, in light of all of the evidence, the crime/fraud exception does not apply.
But that wasn't the end! The Court still found that it must hold an evidentiary hearing on the crime/fraud exception. Why? Because none of the defendant's additional evidence matters in determining whether plaintiff made a prima facia showing that a hearing must be held. Instead, the Court must ignore the non-movants' evidence and look just at the movant's evidence:
With the Court having said all of the above, the question then becomes: In resolving the instant Motion, what is the Court’s proper role? Is the Court supposed to look only at the evidence put forward by Plaintiffs and determine whether that evidence, standing alone, would make out a prima facie case? Or is it supposed to take into account all of the evidence provided to it, including that submitted by Defendants, in making a decision on the issue at this stage?
In Haines, the Third Circuit explained that the prima facie case inquiry is one where the court asks “[H]as the party seeking discovery presented evidence which, if believed by the factfinder, supports plaintiff’s theory of fraud?” 975 F.2d at 95 . . . . In doing so, the Haines Court cited approvingly to a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which explained that “prima facie evidence” in this context is “[evidence] [s]uch as will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence . . . [a] case which has proceeded upon sufficient proof to that stage where it will support [a] finding if evidence to the contrary is disregarded.” Id. . . .
In the Court’s view, these portions of Haines make clear that in determining whether a movant has made out a prima facie case, the Court must only assess the strength of the evidence presented by the movant. . . . Or, to put it differently, the Court’s job at this point is not to take the movant’s evidence and consider it alongside with any contrary evidence put in the record by the non-movant, and then to make a decision as to whether a prima facie showing has been made (or whether a preponderance of the evidence supports Plaintiffs’ claim).
ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia, S.A., C.A. No. 19-731-GBW-CJB (D. Del. January 4, 2024).
Fascinating! It's always enlightening when the Court parses the meaning of a term like "prima facie" this closely. I have to wonder if this logic could apply in other contexts, such as a prima facie showing of authenticity at trial.
I'm definitely making a mental note to refer back to this next time I need to make a prima facie showing of something—although we'll have to see if the opinion ends up being cabined exclusively to the crime-fraud exception.
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 …
The privileges of working in the gig economy are too numerous to recount here. There's the freedom to set your own hours, the joy of being constantly rated on how cheerful (yet obsequious) you appear, and avoiding all of the complicated headaches that go with having health insurance and a retirement plan.
Hold it together Hoeschen, if you cry on the job again its back in the chokeyAI-Generated, displayed with permission
Well I have even more good news for you! Judge McCalla held just last week that at least some of you also enjoy the attorney-client privilege.
The defendant in Torvent LLC v. Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. C.A. No. 21-853-JPM, D.I. 208 (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2024) was a startup with only a token staff of actual employees. In lieu of a permanent staff, they retained a large number of contractors for "various accounting and secretarial functions" and "consultants relat[ing] to licensing and damages issues." Id. at 6.
The dispute here arose because the defendant claimed privilege over a few thousand communications with these contractors. The plaintiff argued that these communications were not privileged because these were with third parties, rather than employees. The parties agreed that many of these contractors were functionally identical to employees. They disputed whether communications with these "functional equivalents" are entitled to the same privilege protections as actual employees.
Last year, the District of Delaware implemented a policy prohibiting most people who do not have a bar card from using personal electronics to the courthouse.
Notably, as of this month, Delaware phased out physical bar cards in favor of a printable version. I've had no trouble getting in with the printed bar card, so far, but I've heard secondhand that others may have had issues.
But what happens when out-of-town attorneys don't have a bar card at all, and need to use their personal electronics during the hearing? They must file a motion (or stipulation) and ask for an exemption from the rule.
So far, the Court has generally been willing to grant exceptions to …
"Counsel, go stand in the corner until you figure out what 'collegiality' means."Mag Pole, Unsplash
Several District of Delaware judges have discovery dispute procedures that require parties to first file a letter stating that the parties have met and conferred but are unable to resolve some disputes, and list the disputes.
This usually works out well, but a few issues can occasionally come up with this procedure. For example:
One party refuses to meet-and-confer, forcing the other side to file solo.
The parties have met and conferred to death, but one party refuses to sign the the joint letter anyway (or just refuses to respond), solely for the purpose of delay.
As defenses go, there's few better than "I don't infringe." Unfortunately, it's quite difficult to prove at the motion to dismiss stage. It is, after all, the rare complaint that contains the dark seed of its own demise on this front.
mmm . . . dark seedsAI-Generated, displayed with permission
You might think that a motion to dismiss based on non-infringement would be a little bit easier in the ANDA context. After all, you have this giant document listing everything in your product and what it does. You would be wrong.
Such was the lesson of Judge Fallon's opinion in Allergan, Inc. v. Mankind Pharma Ltd., C.A. No. 23-272 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2023), unsealed last week. The patent there required (amongst dozens of assorted buffers, reagents, uppers, downers, and excipients) a phosphate buffer. The defendant responded by pointing out that none of the 3.2 trillion ingredients listed in their ANDA contained any phosphorus.
(Eds. Note—for the liberal arts majors amongst you, phosphorous is a pretty big part of anything "phosphate")
They thus moved for judgment on the pleadings of no literal infringement, reasoning that the ANDA controlled the infringement inquiry. Judge Fallon denied the motion however, holding that it was possible future evidence might contradict the ANDA:
Mankind Pharma insists that the ANDA specification controls the infringement inquiry. However, the case law cited by Mankind Pharma in support of this proposition explains that the infringement inquiry is based not only on the ANDA filing, but also on "other materials submitted by the accused infringer to the FDA, and other evidence provided by the parties." The Federal Circuit explained "[i]t is ... possible, at least in theory, that other evidence may directly contradict the clear representations of the ANDA and create a dispute of material fact[,]" even if "[s]uch circumstances [are] unlikely to arise in practice[.]" Consistent with this recitation of the applicable standard, each case cited by Mankind Pharma was decided on a fully developed record, either on summary judgment or following a bench trial.
Allergan, Inc. v. Mankind Pharma Ltd., C.A. No. 23-272, at 5-6 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2023) (internal citations omitted).
This case follows several similar decisions in the district, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Alembic Pharms. Ltd, C.A. No. 22-1395-RGA, 2023 WL 6387975, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2023) and InfoRLife SA v. Sun Pharm. Ind. Ltd, C.A. No. 21-1740-WCB, D.I. 153 at 4-5 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2022), which the opinion discusses at some length. Neither of those cases however were quite as factually stark as the one presented here, where the claims clearly require phosphorus, and the ANDA includes . . . no phosphorus.
We mentioned back in October that Judge Hall was confirmed to the District of Delaware. Today, the Court started re-assigning cases from existing judges to Judge Hall. These arrive as a simple one-sentence docket entry:
Case Reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall. Please include the initials of the Judge (JLH) after the case number on all documents filed.
The re-assignments involve cases at multiple stages, including past the close of fact discovery, and cases where Judge Hall was not previously involved as a magistrate judge.
One common question I see is "why did our case get re-assigned"? We can all speculate, but I'm not sure it's safe to read anything into a re-assignment like this beyond "our case was re-assigned …
We've talked a lot about "plain meaning" constructions, and how our judges havesometimespushedback against parties who offer plain meaning constructions without any indication of what the actual meaning of the term is.
Magistrate Judge Fallon issued an R&R today on an offshoot of this issue. In PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Charles Industries, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1517-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2024), the parties disputed the construction of only a single term, "drop cable." Plaintiff proposed not construing the term at all, and offered a generic definition as an alternative. The defendant proposed a specific construction that added limitations to the claim.
The patent at issue is directed towards a wall-mounted box that …
"Not invalid" may be a double negative, but it's definitely not the same as "valid."Markus Spiske, Unsplash
Chief Judge Connolly issued a short opinion this morning denying a motion for summary judgment that a patent was not patent ineligible, in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1544-CFC-SRF (D. Del. Jan. 3, 2024).
In short, the patentee had previously succeeded on the issue of § 101 ineligibility at the Federal Circuit, which reversed a lower-court finding of ineligibility and held that:
[T]he asserted claims in Bard’s three patents are directed to eligible subject matter under § 101.
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Med. Components, Inc., C.A. Nos. 2022-1136, 2022-1186, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS …
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.
