A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


DED
United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Chief Judge Stark Confirms $137m Damages Award on 65% Royalty Theory, But Reverses Jury Finding of Willfulness

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 30, 2020
Damages Willfulness

Dollar Bills
Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

Chief Judge Stark today released his opinion on post-trial motions in Roch Diagnostics Co. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC, C.A. No. 17-189-LPS (D. Del.), following a jury trial last year that resulted in a $137m verdict and a finding of willfulness.

Damages Award on 65% Royalty Theory Confirmed

The Court denied a post-trial motion to undo the jury's damage finding, which equated to an approximately 65% royalty rate (or more, depending on the royalty base).

Interestingly, the jury awarded damages after a one-sided royalty rate presentation by Roche, the accused infringer. The Court had previously excluded the patentee's damages expert's opinion as to the royalty rate, because it used the wrong date …

View

Trials? Maybe?

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Nov. 20, 2020
COVID-19

anastasiia-chepinska-OBmBHmrc3pw-unsplash.jpg
Local business closed during the coronavirus covid-19 quarantine, Anastasiia Chepinska, Unsplash

Like the rest of the nation, Delaware is presently descending into an apocalyptic vortex of pestilence and despair. As we've chronicled in numerous posts, this is having no small effect on the business of conducting trials. Thankfully, however, a few orders out this week suggest that there's still some hope that trials scheduled in the very near time might yet go forward.

The first of these was in Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., C.A. No. 17-1616-LPS-CJB. This case had been set to be Judge Stark's first post-pandemic patent jury trial before being mysteriously continued earlier this month.

Today, however, the Court issued an …

View

We Three Agree — Me, Myself, and I (Or: Court Strikes Expert's Opinion That Secretly Relied On His Own Anonymous Writing)

Emily S. DiBenedetto, Nov. 19, 2020
Rule 37 Sanctions

Mirrored
Mirrored Alex Iby, Unsplash

Last month, Judge Burke struck "a substantial portion" of an expert's infringement report after the expert relied on his own anonymous peer review to prove infringement, without disclosing that he had been the author.

The truth did not come out until the deposition.

The Expert Secretly Relied On His Own Prior Anonymous Writing

Plaintiffs in this action allege infringement only via the doctrine of equivalents, arguing that the differences between the accused drug and the claimed drug are insubstantial. Defendant argues that the differences are substantial, relying in part on a 2016 article showing that the accused drug performs significantly better than the claimed drug.

Plaintiffs' expert reports criticized the 2016 article based on two …

View

UPDATE: First Post-Coronavirus Jury Trial in Delaware Continued Due to Coronavirus Concerns

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 18, 2020
COVID-19 Trial Calendar

According to the docket, USA v. Davis proceeded to jury selection on Monday, but the trial was then continued:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Leonard P. Stark - Jury Selection as to Aaron Davis held on 11/16/2020 (Court Reporter B. Gaffigan.) (etg) (Entered: 11/17/2020)
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Jury Trial is CONTINUED. The government shall file a joint status report due by 11/30/2020. A Telephone Conference is set for 12/1/2020 at 01:45 PM before Judge Leonard P. Stark. Time is excluded from 11/17/2020 until 12/1/2020. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/17/2020. (etg) (Entered: 11/17/2020)

The order states only that the trial was continued "for the reasons stated in court November 16, 2020," …

View

Disclaimer – Nice, If You Can Get It

Jeff Castellano, Nov. 17, 2020
Disclaimer Claim Construction

A Markman ruling issued by Judge Andrews this week demonstrates how hard it can be to convince the Court that a patentee has disclaimed claim scope. In the MDL In re: Sitagliptin Phosphate ('708 & '921) Patent Litigation, Judge Andrews drew a distinction between the kinds of prosecution activity that can give rise to disclaimer, and those that cannot.

Surfactants at work
Surfactants at work Soap bubbles_3, Daniele Levis Pelusi, Unsplash

In short, defendants argued that the plaintiff had disclaimed claim scope regarding the nature and purpose of the claimed "surfactant" during prosecution. The Court ultimately agreed in part, finding that "surfactant" had been limited to a "wetting agent" that increases dissolution of sitagliptin.

It is worth noting here that …

View

District of Delaware Holds First Jury Trial Since Start of Pandemic

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 15, 2020
Jury Trials COVID-19

Chairs
Billy, Unsplash

On Monday morning, Chief Judge Stark is scheduled to hold the second District of Delaware jury trial since all jury proceedings were put on hold for the pandemic. The case is USA v. Aaron Davis, C.A No. 19-101-LPS, a criminal fraud and money laundering action filed August 2019.

The Court issued an order Friday making clear that the jury trial will go forward as planned:

ORAL ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall be present in Courtroom 6B at 9:00 AM on Monday, November 16, 2020. Ordered by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/13/2020. (etg) (Entered: 11/13/2020)

The Court has not yet posted public access information.

UPDATE 11-18-2020: This trial was continued shortly after …

View

Scheduling a District of Delaware Trial Just Keeps Getting Harder

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Nov. 12, 2020
Scheduling COVID-19

As we've covered pretty exhaustively, its getting harder and harder to schedule a trial next year in the District of Delaware. In fact, given the huge number of delays and cancellations of trials that were previously scheduled for this year, most of 2021 is already double or triple-booked with trials.

So it's no surprise that parties that don't have firm dates already on the calendar for next year are eager to lock something—anything—down. That's what happened in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., et. al., C.A. No. 12-1595 (LPS), last week. In that case—which is actually seven related cases—the scheduling order (as modified by recent COVID-related stipulation) set a deadline for dispositive motions that had briefing set to conclude next …

View

Rule 31 Depositions by Written Questions In Light of COVID-19 Travel Restrictions

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 11, 2020
Depositions FRCP 31

COVID-19
COVID-19, CDC/Hannah A Bullock; Azaibi Tamin

Here's something you don't see every day.

After a discovery dispute about bringing a parties' European witnesses to the US for deposition during the pandemic, Judge Noreika ordered that depositions of a defendants' witnesses may initially take place by written questions under FRCP 31:

ORAL ORDER . . . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that . . . Plaintiff may request a deposition of the witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31. Any such deposition shall be subject to Local Rule 30.6, with the "commencement" of the written deposition being when Defendants' counsel receives the written questions and the "conclusion" of the deposition being when Defendants' counsel serves the response …
View

Defendant's Attempt to Raise Inventorship Defense at Trial Blocked

Jeff Castellano, Nov. 10, 2020
Preclusion Litigation

Earlier today, Judge Connolly issued a ruling precluding a defendant from pursuing its inventorship theory under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). The ruling is notable because the request for preclusion came at trial after the defense was included in the parties' pretrial order. Nonetheless, Judge Connolly found that the circumstances justified exclusion.

ani-kolleshi-7jjnJ-QA9fY-unsplash.jpg
Ani Kolleshi, Unsplash

Although defendant Sandoz's final contentions had raised an inventorship defense, it was focused on misjoinder as opposed to nonjoinder, Judge Connolly explained.

And although Sandoz included a nonjoinder defense in its portion of the pretrial order, Judge Connolly noted that "given the number of contested facts and issue of law Sandoz identified in the 8,629-page PTO, I would not fault Plaintiffs if they failed …

View

On The Hazards of Talking to Your Witness During a Deposition in Delaware

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 9, 2020
Rule 30.6 Rule 30

hiroshi-kimura-rtX4wxMEI2M-unsplash.jpg
Hiroshi Kimura, Unsplash

Since the early 2000's, the District of Delaware local rules have prohibited talking to a witness about the subject matter of their deposition testimony during a deposition:

RULE 30.6. Depositions Upon Oral Examination.
From the commencement until the conclusion of deposition questioning by an opposing party, including any recesses or continuances, counsel for the deponent shall not consult or confer with the deponent regarding the substance of the testimony already given or anticipated to be given, except for the purpose of conferring on whether to assert a privilege against testifying or on how to comply with a court order.

It's not uncommon for visiting counsel defending depositions in Delaware cases to not know this rule. …

View
Newer
Older

Archive