They are the home seemingly idle musings about the scope of the law and arguments that might have been made in a better world.
There is a freedom in the foot.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Judge Wolson had a particularly striking footnote in his post-trial opinion in Med-El Elektromedizinisch Gerate GES.M.B.H. v. Adv. Bionics, LLC, C.A. No. 18-1530-JDW (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2024), which dealt with an important issue that I had not seen before in the district.
The plaintiff had gone to trial on both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and for both induced and contributory infringement. The verdict form, however, did not …
On Friday, visiting Judge Wolson granted summary judgment of non-infringement in PACT XPP Schweiz Ag v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 19-1006-JDW (D. Del. July 26, 2024), after the patentee shot themselves in the foot while opposing invalidity before the PTO in an ex parte reexamination.
Basically, the patent relates to a connection within a microprocessor. The asserted claims require a "dedicated connection" between two things.
During re-exam (co-pending with the district court case), the PTO rejected the claims based on a prior art reference that could be configured to connect multiple different things on either side. The patentee pushed back, arguing that a "dedicated connection" requires connecting the two things and nothing else …
Once you stop groaning, you can use this image of "sealing the courtroom" to help you remember to move to seal next time.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Most filings in the District of Delaware can be made under seal without a motion. The Court requires a motion to seal certain things, however, including hearing transcripts—and the burden on those motions can be high.
I've noticed that out-of-town counsel sometimes forgets just how involved it is to file a motion to seal. It's not a form motion that you can draft up quickly. It's a substantive filing, that also requires a meet-and-confer, and that is best supported by a client declaration.
Visiting Judge Wolson, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, reminded …
All of the sitting judges in the District of Delaware require, in their form scheduling orders, that each party (or each side) may file no more than three motions in limine.
But winning a MIL can really change the scope of trial by precluding key evidence or arguments. In complex patent cases, parties very often want more (sometimes many more) than three MILs to shape the trial in their favor.
One common attempted solution is to merge multiple MILs together. Instead of "exclude late-disclosed doctrine of equivalents theory" and "exclude a late-disclosed exhibit related to copying," a defendant might file a MIL entitled "exclude untimely theories and evidence" that relates to both of those things, …
"What do you mean, attorney argument! This is unbiased expert testimony about how awesome our positions are."Braydon Anderson, Unsplash
Well, this is a new one for me. In Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., C.A. No. 17-770-JDW-MPT (D. Del. Jan. 16, 2024), the plaintiff had previously brought an action in the ITC against the defendant, and won—achieving an exclusion order that stood up (in part) on appeal.
Now, in a District of Delaware action on the same patents, plaintiff argues willfulness based in part on the previous ITC ruling. Defendant tried to offer an expert who would testify about how great its defenses were at the ITC:
Caterpillar offers Mr. Bartkowski to opine on how …
The ITC is just, constantly issuing opinions. It's always "import this" and "don't export that." Frankly, I don't have the time for it.
That sands through the hourglass, so are the [copyrighted material redacted]Nathan Dumlao, Unsplash
On this historic day, however, Judge Wolson struck back against the relentless tide of ITC opinions. An act for which we at IP/DE will forever be grateful.
The issue came up in the context of a summary judgment opinion in Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., C.A. No. 17-770-JDW-MPT (D. Del. Jan 4, 2024) (Mem). The plaintiff there had previously prevailed at the ITC on one of the patents, and the ITC had issued (sigh) an exclusion order.
The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment of infringement, citing in support only the ITC's written decision. Judge Wolson, denied the motion:
The ITC’s decision is not factual evidence. It is, instead, a decision that weighs evidence and applies the law. Wirtgen’s reliance on the ITC decision as the sole evidence to support its argument means that I could deny the motion just for a failure of proof. But there are other problems as well.
Even if I treated the ITC’s decision as evidence, it would not suffice to carry Wirtgen’s burden. The decision is not binding on me. And the decision came in a different procedural posture. The ITC weighed the parties’ evidence and reached a conclusion, much like I would do after a bench trial. But, at this stage of the proceedings, I can’t weigh the evidence. Instead, I have to credit any contrary evidence that Caterpillar offers, and it has offered evidence . . .
Wirtgen, C.A. No. 17-770-JDW-MPT, at 10.
Let this serve as a reminder that we all have to keep fighting the good fight.
(Eds. Note - the ITC is actually pretty cool by the standards of IP courts and practitioners)
We've written before about the risks of a deponent consulting with counsel during a deposition. This week, visiting Judge Wolson ordered a deposition reopened after counsel did just that:
AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2023, upon consideration of Stragent’s Motion For Sanctions Against VCUSA Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30(d)(2) For VCUSA’s Violation Of Local Rule 30.6 And Established Law (D.I. 100), and for the reasons set forth on the record during a hearing with the Parties, it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. The Motion is GRANTED, to the extent Stragent seeks to reopen the deposition of [the deponent] …
The parties in Stragent, LLC v. Volvo Car USA, LLC, C.A. No. 22-293-JDW (D. Del.) filed a joint appendix of exhibits alongside some supplemental SJ briefing. The defendant filed a motion to seal its SJ brief, which apparently discussed internal software specifications.
The Court granted the motion to seal the SJ brief, but criticized the brief in strong terms:
Volvo seeks to file its supplemental summary judgment brief under seal, but it’s supporting brief doesn’t say much. For example, while Volvo makes generic references to “proprietary commercial, financial and business information” and …
Ouch. This week in MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics LLC, C.A. No. 18-1530-JDW (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2023), Judge Wolson addressed a motion in limine to exclude testimony from both of the accused infringer's witnesses on their prior use defense.
The accused infringer didn't offer expert testimony at all on invalidity, according to the briefing. D.I. 399 at 3. Instead, it asserted a prior use defense in its contentions, presumably intending get it in through fact witness testimony.
The patentee first moved in limine to preclude the defense due to a lack of expert testimony. But the Court held that a party can present an invalidity defense without it—and compared the motion to an improper SJ motion:
The first part of AB’s Motion In Limine #1 is a summary judgment motion in disguise. MED-EL asserts invalidity in this case. If AB had a basis to argue that the absence of expert testimony dooms that claim, then it should have moved for summary judgment on the issue. It didn’t, and it can’t use an in limine motion to dispose of MED-EL’s claim. If AB believes that the lack of expert testimony means that MED-EL cannot meet its burden, then AB can seek relief under Rule 50 at the close of MED-EL’s case at trial.
(We've talked before about the risks of bringing what should be an SJ motion as a MIL.)
In other words, offering no expert testimony could be OK. The accused infringer, however, also failed to ...
An attorney's view after many a deposition—if you're lucky enough to catch a flight back that night.Eva Darron, Unsplash
This On Friday, Judge Wolson addressed—and rejected—an effort by an ANDA defendant to limit deposition discovery on the basis that discovery is, in its view, just not that important in an ANDA action. As set they put it:
This is an ANDA case. Black letter law holds that the infringement issues in an ANDA case are controlled by the ANDA itself. . . . Months ago, Defendants produced the ANDA and ANDA product samples from which the relevant infringement analysis must be derived. Plaintiff has now noticed the deposition of both Defendants and seven individuals. But the information that …
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.
![That sands through the hourglass, so are the [copyrighted material redacted]](https://bd6f.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/nathan-dumlao-5Hl5reICevY-unsplash.max-640x360.webp)
