The 2023 District of Delaware Bench and Bar wrapped up today. It was really great to see everyone in person again. It's hard to believe it, but the last D. Del. Bench and Bar conference was back in May 2018 - over five years ago!
Everyone seems to agree the conference was a huge success. Thank you to the organizers and the Court, who put in a ton of work to make it happen!
Notes
The conference is conducted under the Chatham House Rule—which, honestly, we had forgotten. That means we "are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation …
One of the early questions in many cases (particularly NPE cases) is whether the defendant can move to dismiss the complaint under 12(b)(6) for lacking sufficient detail under Twombly/Iqbal.
The answer is yes: You can, as long as there is insufficient detail. But what is the cutoff? How bad does it have to be?
We got an example of that on Monday, when Chief Judge Connolly dismissed a complaint for lacking detail. According to the Court, all the plaintiff did was say that the defendant's product infringes the claim:
"[A] plaintiff cannot assert a plausible claim for infringement under the Iqbal/Twombly standard by reciting the claim elements and merely concluding that the accused …
"Do we want to bring this discovery dispute, or do we want to cross their corporate rep at trial? Choices, choices..."Vladislav Babienko, Unsplash
We've written before about how the Court sometimes sets up escalating obstacles for parties who are insensitive to the Court's time and bring too many discovery disputes. In that case, the Court gave the parties "homework" (writing letters to the Court) after their seventh discovery dispute.
In Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, C.A. No. 22-1377-MN-JLH (D. Del.), the Court referred all pre-trial matters up until dispositive motions to Magistrate Judge Hall.
Judge Hall took action after the parties brought what looks like seven discovery disputes. The docket shows the Court's escalating response to the parties disputes:
June 1 - First teleconference
June 16 - Second teleconference
July 7 - First in-person hearing
July 14 - Second in-person hearing
August 3 - Third in-person hearing
September 1 - Fourth in-person hearing; Court warns that future disputes will be charged to trial time
September 14 - Fifth in-person hearing; Court charges the parties' trial time
Guessing from the docket, it looks like the parties brought a number of rapid-fire discovery disputes starting on June 1. For the third dispute in about a month, the Court increased the friction on the parties by forcing them to come to Delaware to argue the disputes.
That doesn't seem to have slowed them down at all. After three in-person disputes ...
After reading the decision in Nate's post yesterday, it occurred to me that we haven't addressed a common question in cases in the District of Delaware: When will the Court decide the parties' summary judgment motions?
This is a question that comes up a lot. I think that sometimes, in clients' minds, summary judgment motions are something that is resolved quickly. The parties brief their motions, the Court immediately turns to them, and then an opinion should come out in a week or two. Right?
No. That's not true in any U.S. district court I've practiced in, and the District of Delaware is no different. The Court is extremely hardworking but also overwhelmingly busy.
Many years ago, before Andrew made me put a picture in EVERY TURTLE-CURSED POST, I wrote a post about the very easiest Daubert motion to win. As a brief refresher, it turned out to be a motion to exclude a damages experts reliance on a jury verdict point as the starting point for a hypothetical negotiation. Both Judge Andrews and Judge Burke were particularly firm on the issue, coming just short of setting a bright-line rule:
A jury verdict does not represent evidence from which a hypothetical negotiation can be reliably determined. A jury verdict represents the considered judgment of twelve (or maybe fewer) random non-experts as to what a hypothetical negotiation would have resulted in for the patent(s) …
Defendants are often looking for ways to resolve cases early—§ 101 motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, early summary judgment motions, and so on. Sometimes these can succeed, but it can vary a lot depending on the judge and the circumstances.
Here is one I haven't seen before: In Ravgen, Inc. v. Biora Therapeutics, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1734-RGA-JLH (D. Del.), the defendant moved for the Court to schedule a one-day bench trial on inequitable conduct just after the close of expert discovery, and before the summary judgment deadline—around 7-10 months before trial.
Casual readers might not be aware, but we at IP/DE have a long-running feud with the Swedish publication, "boat news." They think they're so great just because they're all so tall and they write about cool boats. Well, someone finally had the nerve to tell those ruggedly handsome jerks what for.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
That brave soul was Judge Andrews in yesterday's opinion in MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc., C.A. No. 21-92 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2023) (Mem. Op.).
The defendant, Waydoo, alleged that the asserted patent was anticipated by a paper written by a bunch of Swedish engineering students as part of a project. Unlike the famous thesis in In re Hall, 781 F.2d 897, 228 USPQ 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the students project wasn't indexed in a library, but was simply placed on the website for the college course. Apparently, it was downloaded by 17 people.
A dispute thus arose as to whether this paper was "publicly accessible" (and thus prior art). In support of the contention that the paper was accessible, Waydoo noted that Boat News had written an article about the project that included a link to the paper (riveting, I'm sure). Waydoo contended that this article would have led the magazines many readers to the paper.
Judge Andrews, however, noted the obvious flaw ...
Motions in limine can feel like some of the most impactful-feeling motions in the case. Unlike most motions in our busy federal courts, they are typically addressed very quickly, and almost always by the judge handling trial. They are also normally addressed immediately prior to trial. As such, even if the MIL is denied, the issues presented in the MIL may remain at the top of the judge's mind and can influence the direction of the trial (and make subsequent objections easier).
We got an example of that yesterday in Personal Audio, LLC, v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 17-1751-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 5, 2023). In that case, Chief Judge Connolly granted a post-trial JMOL …
Today, I present a gift to the many patent law professors that read this blog every morning (presumably). I give you a truly odd fact pattern that can be inserted neatly into your next exam, and which is guaranteed to annoy your students. All I ask in return is that you require those students to subscribe to the blog in perpetuity, on penalty of failure.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Deal? Deal.
The issue here was the on-sale bar. As a quick refresher, that's this bit of 102:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
The patents in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Elysium Health, Inc., C.A No. 20-1098-GBW (D. Del. Aug 30, 2023) covered distinct crystal forms of a compound called "NCRI." Shortly before the critical date of July 24, 2013, the patentee had agreed to sell some NCRI to a customer. There was a PO and ...
In Candid Care Co., v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, C.A. No. 21-1180-CFC (D. Del.), SmileDirectClub sued Candid Care—its competitor—for patent infringement of a single patent. Chief Judge Connolly dismissed the case, holding that the patent was patent ineligible under § 101.
The next day, SmileDirectClub sued Candid Care on a second patent in the same family, this time in the Western District of Texas.
But the Western District of Texas transferred the case back to Delaware—and, because it is related to the previous case, it was assigned to Chief Judge Connolly again. Shortly thereafter (perhaps to avoid its second patent suffering a similar fate under § 101), SmileDirectClub granted …
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.
