A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


GBW
The Honorable Gregory B. Williams

Don't Rely on Pennypack: Judge Williams Easily Strikes Late Contentions

Andrew E. Russell, March 6, 2023
Pennypack Contentions

Is the reign of Pennypack coming to an end?
Is the reign of Pennypack coming to an end? AI-Generated

We talked earlier this year about a decision by Judge Burke that struck a parties' final infringement contentions under a good cause standard, and declined to apply the much looser Pennypack standard.

Today, citing Judge Burke's opinion, Judge Williams likewise declined to rely on Pennypack in striking late-served "Amended Final Invalidity Contentions":

According to the Court's Scheduling Order, Defendants must serve their Final Invalidity Contentions to Chervon by December 17, 2020, which they did so. D.I. 37 if 7(f). On July 27, 2022, Defendants served their Amended Final Invalidity Contentions. D.I. 316 at 1; D.I. 319 at 1. Defendants did not request leave from the Court to amend their Final …
View

Judge Williams: Failure to Disclose Indefiniteness Argument in Invalidity Contentions Is No Bar to Arguing Indefiniteness During Claim Construction

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 22, 2023
Invalidity Contentions Indefiniteness

Milwaukee
Mark Rohan, Unsplash

Yesterday, Judge Williams issued a claim construction opinion in Persawvere, Inc. v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, C.A. No. 21-400-GBW (D. Del. Feb. 21, 2023).

In the joint claim construction brief, plaintiff asserted that defendant had waived its indefiniteness arguments because it did not include them in its invalidity contentions:

Given that Defendant failed to raise an indefiniteness argument in its Invalidity Contentions concerning terms 3 and 4, see Ex. 8, Defendant has waived this defense.

D.I. 47 at 30. In the case, the scheduling order required both initial and final invalidity contentions; defendant did not mention indefiniteness in its initial contentions, and the deadline for final contentions had not yet passed.

The defendant …

View

Customer Suit Exception Argument Fails Where Patentee Asserts Additional Patent Against Customer—Even If the Issues May Be Similar

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 20, 2023
Motion to Stay Customer Suit Exception

Factory
Ant Rozetsky, Unsplash

It's fairly common for a patentee to bring suit simultaneously against both a customer who is using or reselling an infringing product and the manufacturer who produced the product.

Sometimes the customer is the real target, and sometimes it's the manufacturer. Either way, some courts have recognized a "customer suit exception" that suggests that, under some circumstances, suits against a manufacturer should take precedence over a suit against a customer.

As courts sometimes point out, the customer suit "exception" began as an exception to the first filed rule in patent cases. But courts can also apply the principle more broadly, including to motions to stay.

For example, last week Judge Williams addressed a motion to stay …

View

Judge Williams Is Now 3 for 3 on 101 Motions

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 7, 2023
101

A while back I wrote a post about the relative success rates of 101 motions before the different Delaware Judges. To prove once and for all that I sometimes ramble, that entire post can be distilled to the chart below:

  • Chief Judge Connolly - 70% of § 101 motions granted
  • Judge Andrews - 60% of § 101 motions granted
  • Judge Stark - 20% of § 101 motions granted
  • Judge Noreika - 0% of § 101 motions granted

But that was then, dear reader, before we had a new hotshot on the bench who is batting 1.000. If I knew how to use this site better, I would put Judge Williams at the top of this chart in flashing lights with …

View

Judge Williams Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Un-Bifurcate His Court's First Patent Jury Trial; Plaintiff Wins $42 Million and Willfulness Anyway

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 1, 2023
Jury Trials Jury Verdict

Un-bifurcated (but probably not worth $42m)
Un-bifurcated (but probably not worth $42m) AI-Generated, displayed with permission

We wrote in December about how Judge Williams granted defendant's motion to bifurcate the jury trial in Board of Regents, the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corp., C.A. No. 18-392-GBW (D. Del.).

That trial went forward starting last week, and the trial extended into this week. As we mentioned before, Judge Williams split the trial into two phases:

  1. Direct infringement and invalidity
  2. Willful infringement, damages, knowledge, and intent for induced infringement

Near the conclusion of Phase 1, plaintiff moved to "unbifurcat[e]" the trial. According to the transcript:

MR. SHORE [for plaintiff]: Your Honor, we would like for the Court to consider over the weekend, not …
View

No, You Can't Add a Copying Defense to Obviousness Two Weeks Before Trial (And That Is a Good Thing)

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 20, 2023
Prejudice Obviousness

"I knew we forgot something..." AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Yesterday Judge Williams issued an oral order in Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corporation, C.A. No. 18-392-GBW (D. Del.) addressing a dispute about whether plaintiffs could offer evidence of copying or other secondary considerations after they failed to disclose those argument until just before trial.

In a lengthy oral order, Judge Williams held that they had waited too long and are now precluded from offering evidence of copying or certain other secondary considerations.

According to the Court, plaintiff had failed to disclose its secondary considerations arguments despite numerous opportunities:

ORAL ORDER: . . . Plaintiff had several prior opportunities to advise [defendant] …
View

Be Careful with That Joint Statement of Uncontested Facts. You Might Not Be Able to Walk It Back

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 16, 2023
Trial Trial Practice

Artist's rendition of a pretrial order printed without tabs
Artist's rendition of a pretrial order printed without tabs JJ Ying, Unsplash

Oof, this one may have been painful. Last month in Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC, C.A. No. 20-887-GBW-JLH (D. Del.), the defendant apparently asserted at least two non-infringement defenses, one based on a "groove" limitation and one based on a "radius" limitation.

The defendant asserted the groove limitation defense in response to a summary judgment motion. Then, the following series of events occurred:

  • December 6, 2022: The Court denies the summary judgment motion against which the defendant asserted the groove limitation defense
  • December 13, 2022: The parties filed their proposed pretrial order. In it, they included a joint statement of uncontested facts. …
View

Lawyer Files Letter Asking Court to Rule on Their Motion; Court Immediately Grants Motion; Client Cheers

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 13, 2023
Motion to Stay Congestion

Danger
Raúl Nájera, Unsplash

The District of Delaware is extremely busy. Sometimes clients and out-of-town counsel are surprised that they probably won't get rulings on their motions in the very-short-term. This often prompts questions like "Can we call the Court and ask them to rule on our motion?"—the answer to which is "no."

But in some instances parties really do need to alert the Court to a situation on the ground in the case that is impacted by a pending motion. The answer then is often to file a letter, which sometimes works.

We saw another successful letter this week. In Bataan Licensing LLC v. DentalEZ, Inc., C.A. No. 22-238-GBW (D. Del.), the defendant …

View

On the Importance of Consistency

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 30, 2022
Privilege Objections to R&Rs

Up Down Arrow
愚木混株 cdd20, Unsplash

We got a good "what not to do" example today, relayed in an opinion by Judge Williams.

In the opinion, the Court addressed objections to a magistrate judge ruling on a privilege issue (remember—you can object to non-dispositive magistrate judge rulings in addition to R&Rs. Good luck.).

As the Court explained, the defendants initially argued to the magistrate judge that Third Circuit law governed, and that Federal Circuit law was grounded in the same principles as Third Circuit law anyway. The magistrate judge agreed:

In briefing submitted to the Magistrate Judge, Defendants state that, "Federal Circuit [law] does not differ [from Third Circuit law] in that it 'is grounded in principles of fairness. '" D.I. 224 at 3. The Magistrate Judge credited Defendants' argument to conclude Third Circuit law applies. See D.I. 232 at 3 n.2 ("Because Defendants themselves initially relied on Third Circuit caselaw here (as did Plaintiff) and because Defendants assert that the Third Circuit's approach to this issue is no different from that of the Federal Circuit, the Court will herein apply Third Circuit law regarding the 'at issue' doctrine to this patent case." ).

Then, in objecting to the magistrate judge's ruling, the defendants apparently reversed position, arguing that Federal Circuit law differed, and that the magistrate judge had erred by relying on

View

A Perilous Route to Personal Jurisdiction

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 27, 2022
Personal Jurisdiction

As a lawyer, I am used to reaching into my stocking on Christmas eve to find yet another lump of sumptuous coal. Hard and black as my own cynical heart, it is but fuel for engine of my enemies' destruction.

Season's Greetings!
Season's Greetings! AI-Generated, displayed with permission

This year, however, I was presently surprised to return to the office after spending the entire holiday sick in bed to find a new opinion to discuss on the blog. Everyone wins today.

IBM Corp. v. Rakuten, Inc., C.A. No. 21-461 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2022) presents an interesting issue of personal Jurisdiction I hadn't seen before. The plaintiff, IBM, sued Rakuten a Japanese corporation (and seller of cool Japanese goods) along with its U.S. subsidiary Ebates. After suit was filed, Rakuten transferred several patents in its portfolio to Ebates, who then asserted them against IBM as permissive counterclaims. All the while, Rakuten maintained that the Court lacked personal Jurisdiction (Ebates conceded jurisdiction).

Judge Williams, however, found the maneuver of shuffling the patents off to Ebates sufficient to confer ...

View
Newer
Older

Archive