A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

Court Holds Claim Indefinite Where One of Two Claimed Ways to Infringe Is Scientifically Impossible

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 16, 2024
Indefiniteness Claim Construction

An electric signal transmitted over the air?
An electric signal transmitted over the air? Brandon Morgan, Unsplash

Judge Burke issued an interesting claim construction opinion on Thursday of last week, invalidating a claim where one of two ways to infringe was scientifically impossible.

One claim limitation was set forth in the alternative:

A communications apparatus for transmitting electric or electromagnetic signals over air

Satius Holding, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 18-850-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2024).

The parties agreed the it is "scientifically possible" to transmit "electromagnetic signals" over air, but the defendant argued that it was impossible to transmit "electric" signals over the air:

Defendants assert that one of those two options—“transmitting electric . . . signals over air”—amounts …
View

Patentee's Own Weak Interrogatory Responses Cause Denial of Its Motion to Strike Opposing Party's Late Expert Argument

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 11, 2024
Expert Discovery Expert Reports

"Behold, our fulsome and complete damages theory disclosure. I'm sure this won't cause us any problems down the line." Andy Bridge, Unsplash

Parties in patent cases are often tempted to provide bare-bones responses to contention interrogatories, offering just enough to preserve their ability to expand on the arguments later during expert reports. That's easier, obviously, than providing more detailed contentions, and it also maintains flexibility as discovery develops.

Plus, parties simply may not have fully developed their theories at the time contention interrogatories are due. Expert reports are when theories are typically fully fleshed out, after discovery has closed and the universe of information is set, more or less.

But there is another consideration as well, beyond preventing a …

View

Whoops! "Good Faith" Belief in Opposing Party's Breach of Settlement Agreement Insufficient to Permit New Patent Suit

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 4, 2024
Breach of Contract Settlement Agreements

This suit did not go as planned.
This suit did not go as planned. Kyriacos Georgiou, Unsplash

Judge Andrews issued an interesting opinion on opposing summary judgment motions yesterday in Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 19-2216-RGA (D. Del.).

The parties settled a patent infringement suit years ago in a way that permitted the defendant to nonetheless launch its drug product if the patent claims were asserted against a third party and found invalid or not infringed.

Some of the claims were asserted against a third party and held invalid or not infringed, and the defendant launched. The plaintiff disagreed that this permitted launch. It sued the defendant for breach of contract and, critically, for patent infringement.

Last year, …

View

Court Declines to Strike § 282 Notice Disclosing Nearly 200 Prior Art References, Despite Stipulated Narrowing

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 2, 2024
§ 282 Case Narrowing

Some home-cooked stuffing. Apparently the photo in our Thanksgiving post was uncooked stuffing.
Some home-cooked stuffing. Apparently the photo in our Thanksgiving post was uncooked stuffing. Andrew E. Russell, displayed with permission

We're back! I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. As we'd hoped, the Court issued some interesting decisions last week, including a denial of a motion to strike in Lindis Biotech, GmbH v. Amgen, Inc., C.A. No. 22-35-GBW (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2024).

In that case, the parties had agreed to a case narrowing schedule that required the accused infringer to cut back to 6 prior art references per patent by 14 days before the pretrial order, not including references used to show the state of the art, the knowledge of one skilled in the art, …

View

Court Denies Lower-Ranked SJ Motions After Denial-in-Part

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 22, 2024
Ranking Summary Judgment

Dominoes
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Both Chief Judge Connolly and Judge Williams require parties to rank their summary judgment motions. This is an effort to deter meritless summary judgment motions. Upon denying a higher-ranked motion, the Court will automatically deny lower-ranked motions as well.

In other words: You had better be careful when ranking your summary judgment motions. But it can be tricky! Do you put the one with the highest chance of success first, even if it's on an issue you don't care as much about? Or do you rank the tougher SJ motion first because it addresses a critical issue first, to ensure that the Court will at least address it?

And what if a motion is granted, but …

View

Court Denies Stay Pending Instituted IPR

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 20, 2024

"Loco-Crazy Good Cookers, Inc." wins IP/DE's 2024 Best Company Name Ever award. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Parties sometimes think that a stay pending an instituted IPR is almost a given. But while a stay is more likely than not, it's not a sure thing.

Last month we saw a even a stipulated stay pending IPR denied by visiting Judge Choe-Groves (in the time since, by the way, that denial has held firm, and the Court issued a scheduling order).

This week Judge Fallon denied a stay pending an instituted IPR in North Atlantic Imports, LLC v. Loco-Crazy Good Cookers, Inc., C.A. No. 23-999-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Nov. 19, 2024). The Court noted that there were non-patent claims …

View

If You Want to Preserve Your Arguments for Trial, Put Them In the Pretrial Order

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 6, 2024
Trial Pretrial Order

Danger
Micaela Parente, Unsplash

This may seem obvious to practiced litigators, but the pretrial order is no joke. It defines the scope of the claims and defenses at trial, and omitting things from it is a very risky proposition. Be careful.

That's why parties sometimes end up with ridiculously long pretrial orders—they don't expect anyone to read them front to back, but they want to make sure nothing is waived.

We saw another example of this yesterday in In Re: Ozempic (Semaglutide) Patent Litigation, C.A. No. 22-MD-3038-CFC (D. Del.). There, the defendants intentionally omitted their obviousness-type double patenting invalidity defense from the pretrial order, in light of a recent Federal Circuit case clarifying the rules …

View

Patentee's Delay in Moving to Amend Infringement Contentions Costs Them the Opportunity to Add 40 Accused Products—Even Though Fact Discovery Has Not Ended

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 1, 2024
Accused Products Stay Pending IPR

The apparent state of the patentee's case after the Court's decision.
The apparent state of the patentee's case after the Court's decision. Jason Mavrommatis, Unsplash

Before you get too excited, defendants, this case involved a scheduling order using Judge Connolly's form, which provides only a single round of infringement and invalidity contentions, and explicitly requires good cause to amend.

Most District of Delaware scheduling orders include two rounds of contentions (initial and final), with the second round typically coming around the close of fact discovery. It is unlikely to be as difficult to amend in cases like those.

Regardless, I thought this was an interesting result worthy of a post. In Cognipower LLC v. Fantasia Trading, LLC, C.A. No. 19-2293-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Court stayed the case …

View

Judge Andrews Holds That, Contrary to Prior Case, Claims Dropped Due to Claim Narrowing Should Be Dismissed with Prejudice

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 30, 2024
Dismissal With Prejudice

AI-generated depiction of Judge Andrews putting down zombie claims for good.
AI-generated depiction of Judge Andrews putting down zombie claims for good. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Former Chief Judge Sleet used to frequently say that "there is no such thing as the law of the district." Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., No. 17-1407-GMS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9544, at *8 n.3 (D. Del. Jan. 22, 2018) (cleaned up). In other words, one district court judge's ruling is not binding on another.

We saw that yesterday, when Judge Andrews held that claims dropped due to claim narrowing are dropped with prejudice, and recognized that another of our judges had previously held the opposite on similar facts.

In Exeltis USA, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., C.A. No. 22-434-RGA (D. …

View

Court Denies Stipulated Stay Pending IPR

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 28, 2024
Stay Pending IPR Stipulation

Thumbs Down
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

As we've noted in the past, it's fairly routine to stay cases once an IPR is instituted. But the Court has at least once denied a stipulated stay where the IPRs were not yet instituted.

Last week the visiting Judge Choe-Groves denied a stipulated stay where the PTAB had instituted an IPR for two out of three patents-in-suit—leaving one patent not subject to an IPR, as the parties explained in the stip:

WHEREAS, Teladoc filed three petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) (Nos. IPR2024-00618, IPR2024-00616; and IPR2024-00617) of the Asserted Patents;
WHEREAS, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted IPRs on the ’554 and ’142 Patents on September 16, 2024 and September 17, 2024; …
View
Older

Archive