A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


DED
United States District Court for the District of Delaware

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

Judge Connolly Sets Out His Views on Expediting "Silver Bullet" Motions, Including Indefiniteness

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 6, 2020
Marking Early SJ

Wolf
Wolf in the Forest, Philipp Pilz, Unsplash

I don't have the full transcript, but based on quotes set out in a letter filed by the parties, Judge Connolly recently set forth his thoughts on the kinds of issues he is willing to address early in the case:

Now, what I try to do when I think there's kind of a silver bullet, I move it to the top of the pile. That's what I do on indefiniteness.

According to the letter, Judge Connolly was prepared to stay the case and expedite summary judgment briefing on indefiniteness if it was case dispositive. Defendant declined that offer in a letter after the hearing.

Judge Connolly also suggested that he …

View

You'd Have to Be Certifiably Insane to Move for an Interlocutory Appeal

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Nov. 5, 2020
KB Interlocutory Appeal

Attorneys deciding to move for certification of interlocutory appeal
Attorneys deciding to move for certification of interlocutory appeal Oleg Moroz, Unsplash

As we mentioned earlier this week, Judge Noreika issued another in a storied line of Memorandum Orders denying a request to certify an interlocutory appeal. The decision in Arbor Global Strategies LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1986-MN, D.I. 68 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2020) was a fairly unremarkable denial, but it caused me to wonder just how rare it is to see one of these granted. So I checked.

As far back as DocketNavigator goes (which is apparently January 2008), I count 23 separate Delaware cases where a party has requested certification. Of those, only four have been granted, the most recent of …

View

Update on Upcoming D. Del. Trials [Updated]

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 4, 2020
COVID-19 Trial Calendar

COVID-19
CDC / Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAMS

Last week I summarized upcoming District of Delaware jury trials.

With the COVID-19 numbers surging nation-wide, I wanted to keep an eye on these. All told, five of the six jury trials are still on. One trial was continued, and the parties in another filed a letter yesterday asking to delay the trial due to COVID-19 concerns.

Here are the updates:

  • November 3: Judge Noreika's remote bench trial was canceled after the parties settled.
  • November 16: Chief Judge Stark's criminal jury trial is still scheduled to go forward, although there is a status call set for 5pm tomorrow.
  • November 30: Chief Judge Stark continued the civil jury …
View

No Reasserting Dropped Claims Without Good Cause, Says Judge Andrews

Jeff Castellano, Nov. 3, 2020
Claim Narrowing Case Narrowing

In the most recent entry in the case narrowing saga in IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 16-1266-RGA (previously covered here and here), Judge Andrews addressed defendant Amazon's objection to the reassertion of previously dropped claims.

Earlier this year, Judge Andrews directed IPA to reduce its asserted claims to 30, and it did. Subsequently, nearly half of its asserted claims were invalidated in an IPR. Plaintiff IPA, no longer asserting the invalidated claims, then added (or "reasserted") seven of the previously dropped claims in place of the invalidated claims.

Amazon opposed the addition of the new claims because fact discovery was nearly complete and because it had crafted its invalidity case with the 30 asserted claims in …

View

No Interlocutory Appeal of Contract-Based Patent Standing (Ever?)

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 2, 2020
Standing MTD

Stop Sign
Luke van Zyl, Unsplash

Late last week, Judge Noreika denied a motion for interlocutory appeal of an denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Security Interest Doesn't Prevent Suit After Debt Repaid

In moving to dismiss, defendant argued that the PTO assignment records show that the the patentee had assigned its patents to a lender as collateral and, after the debt was repaid, had never received an assignment back or any release of the security interest.

Plaintiff countered that the security interest was extinguished once the debt was repaid, regardless of any release or assignment specific to the patent. So no separate assignment back was needed.

Judge Noreika sided held that the judgment had been satisfied …

View

Summary Judgment Granted Where Doctrine of Equivalents Analysis Merely "Repackaged" Literal Infringement Analysis

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 30, 2020
DOE SJ

Chief Judge Stark this week granted a motion of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to the slim DOE analysis relied on by the patentee's expert.

Interestingly, the expert had offered some testimony framed in terms of the usual function-way-result DOE test:

[T]he Accused Products perform substantially the same function (producing densitometry/densitometric models for use in assessing bone density), in substantially the same way (determining linear attenuation coefficients of an object in several tomographic scans and combining this information using the Feldkamp algorithm to determine the grayscale values of voxels and the corresponding HU units thereof of a 3D CBCT volume of the object), to achieve substantially the same result (3D volumes that include information for depicting quantitative differences …
View

Discovery Motions, Like Chocolate, Should Not be Kept in Your Back Pocket

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 29, 2020
Motion to Strike Discovery Dispute

You really have to use it soon
Brown Chocolate, Kaffee Meister, Unsplash

More often than not, when the Court has a hearing on discovery disputes, both sides bring competing issues. No one likes to be totally on defense for an entire hearing, and even bringing a marginal dispute allows you to undermine the opposing party by pointing out their own wrongdoing. And of course, there's always the chance that you'll win.

Judge Burke showed the limits of this calculus earlier this week—it only works if you convince the Court you've got a real dispute. And It's very hard to do that if you admit that you wouldn't have filed your motion if the other side hadn't moved first.

That's what plaintiff did in in …

View

Does It Matter Whether a Patent Plaintiff Is Actually Located in Delaware?

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 28, 2020
Jumara Transfer

Globe
Adolfo Félix, Unsplash

The short answer is: it depends on the judge.

These days, most Delaware patent plaintiffs are incorporated in Delaware but not located here. Different District of Delaware judges have gone different ways on the question of whether a plaintiff's location actually matters when considering whether to transfer a case out of Delaware.

Transfer motions are governed by the twelve "Jumara factors," and plaintiff's choice of forum gets "paramount" weight except—some judges have held—when the plaintiff is not actually located in Delaware.

Judge Connolly today answered this question with a resounding "no," holding that the location of plaintiff's principal place of business does not matter to whether it's choice of forum gets paramount weight: …

View

Fees Motion Clears One Hurdle, Trips Over Another

Jeff Castellano, Oct. 27, 2020
Fees

Last week, Judge Noreika denied defendant Shopify Inc.'s motion for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 ("The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party."), holding Shopify partly accountable for the amount of fees it incurred during the relatively short pendency of the case. While the opinion is worth reading in its entirety, there are two particularly notable aspects to the decision.

What Shopify won't be getting
Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

First, Judge Noreika found that Shopify was the "prevailing party," on the basis of the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of its case with prejudice. While the Court had not issued any merits-based decisions prior to the dismissal, and did not itself effectuate the dismissal (it was self-executing under Rule …

View
Newer
Older

Archive