A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

Ironing Out the Details

Nathan R. Hoeschen, April 23, 2024
Pennypack Contentions

There are a few words I dread seeing in an order. Some are obvious—"egregious," "sanctions," "nonsensical," "balding," etc. Others I only learned to fear after seeing them used in an opinion—"valiant," "sporting," "leakage" (don't ask).

In an opinion issued over the blog's break, Judge Williams gave new fuel to the pyre of woe that is my subconscious, and added a new word to my list: IRONY

Sadly, there do not appear to be any public domain pictures of Alanis Morissette, I assume she is a reader though and will send us a replacement image with her blessing shortly.
Sadly, there do not appear to be any public domain pictures of Alanis Morissette, I assume she is a reader though and will send us a replacement image with her blessing shortly. Filip Mroz, Unsplash

Even without the irony, Chervon (HK) Ltd. v. One World Techs., Inc., C.A. No 19-1293-GBW, D.I. 394 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2024) was an unusually interesting discovery dispute. In that case, the parties agreed to a case narrowing procedure wherein, after final contentions, the defendant was to elect no more than 3 grounds per asserted claim. When the defendant served that election, plaintiff complained that it included grounds that were not charted in the final contentions. In an apparent attempt to moot the issue, the defendant then served (without seeking leave) new contentions that did chart all of the elected grounds. The plaintiff then moved to strike the portions of the election not previously charted and the new contentions in their entirety.

Judge Williams granted that motion, striking most of the elected grounds and all of the new contentions, in particular noting that the defendant had not sought leave to serve them. Unfortunately this left the defendant without any elected grounds for several claims, and so they served a new election of asserted grounds including only grounds which were charted in the original, unstruck contentions (with a bit of a fudge factor). Shortly after service they moved for leave to submit the new contentions, and plaintiff cross-moved to strike them.

Which is where we get to the IRONY of it all ...

View

Nine Motions to Strike Is Seven Too Many

Andrew E. Russell, April 22, 2024
Motion to Strike Congestion

"They brought four motions to strike? We better bring 5!" AI-Generated, displayed with permission

There was an interesting order last week in Cleveland Medical Devices Inc. v. ResMed Inc., C.A. No. 22-794-JLH (D. Del.).

The parties filed a letter initiating a discovery dispute conference with the Court. These letters must include non-argumentative descriptions of each dispute the parties raise with the Court. Here, the letter listed a total of nine motions to strike expert reports, including five from the plaintiff and four from the defendant.

Typically the Court reviews these letters and sets a date for a conference and for briefing on each sides' issues. Here, however, the Court took issue with the extraordinary number of …

View

Judge Williams Sustains Objections to R&R, Dismisses Complaint Under § 101

Andrew E. Russell, April 20, 2024
MTD Motion to Dismiss

Scanning a Network Printer
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

In some ways, the title says it all—but here is a bit more detail. In Throughtek Co., Ltx v. Reolink Innovation Inc., C.A. No. 23-218-GBW-SRF, D.I. 60 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2024), the patent at issue claimed a system for identifying a networked device in order to establish a connection to it, by scanning a bar code or other image patter on the device.

The defendant moved to dismiss under § 101, arguing that the patent was directed to an abstract idea.

Judge Fallon issued an R&R holding that using the bar code for the connection information solved a problem necessarily rooted in computer technology, and was a specific improvement to computer …

View

Judge Hall Rejects Request to Impose Summary Judgment Motion Ranking, Expands Page Limits

Andrew E. Russell, April 8, 2024
Summary Judgment Ranking

Continuing our eclipse theme
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Most of the judges in the District of Delaware have settled on page limits for summary judgment and Daubert motions in patent cases of 250 total pages: 50 pages opening, 50 pages answering, and 25 pages reply—per side.

The "per side" part is important, and it can have a significant impact on cases with multiple unrelated defendants or defendant groups.

The Court has usually resisted expanding these limits, and in many cases, has instead experimented with ways of reducing the burden on the Court. Judge Noreika, for example, has sometimes required parties to seek leave before filing summary judgment motions.

Chief Judge Connolly has instituted a "ranking" procedure in his cases to help deter meritless …

View

Turns Out, Zero Experimentation Is Not Undue Experimentation

Andrew E. Russell, March 1, 2024
Preamble Enablement

Pills
HalGatewood.com, Unsplash

This week, Judge Bryson issued his findings of fact and conclusions of law following trial in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Tolmar, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1784-WCB (D. Del. Feb. 26, 2024), and ANDA action. The opinion is long and thorough, and I thought the section on enablement was worth noting.

The patent at issue covers a "dosing regimen" for giving an anti-psychotic drug "to a psychiatric patient in need of treatment for psychotic disorder." According to the method, two loading doses of the drug are given, and then a maintenance dose is given between 21 and 38 days later (a "17-day window").

Defendant argued that the patent was not enabled, first because a person of …

View

Court Denies Attempt to Re-Assert Dropped Claim After Pre-Trial Claim Construction Interferes with Strategy

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 23, 2024
Claim Narrowing

Disappointment Ice Cream
Sarah Kilian, Unsplash

In Exeltis USA, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., C.A. No. 22-434-RGA-SRF (D. Del.), plaintiff asserted infringement of claims from six patents. Back in July, 2023, Judge Andrews ordered the plaintiff to narrow its case to seven asserted claims across all of the patents prior to trial, which is set for Monday, February 26, 2024.

On Tuesday of this week, the Court issued its ruling on several pre-trial claim construction disputes. Plaintiff lost some of the disputes and, apparently, decided that it needed to stipulate to non-infringement of that claim.

With one of its seven claims out of the case, and with less than a week to go before trial, Plaintiff sought leave to re-assert one …

View

Judge Burke Provides Guidance on Stays Where the Patent-in-Suit Is Not Actually at Issue in the IPR

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 16, 2024
Stay Pending IPR

Disappearing Zebra
Neil and Zulma Scott, Unsplash

Judge Burke addressed a situation yesterday in BT Americas, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., C.A. No. 22-01538-CJB (D. Del.) where a defendant moved to stay pending IPR, but the patent-in-suit wasn't actually part of the IPR.

You may be thinking—huh? How did that situation come up?

The plaintiff apparently brought suit on two patents, and the defendant moved for IPRs on both. The PTAB instituted on the first one, and declined to institute on the second. When the defendant notified plaintiff of their intent to request a stay, the plaintiff immediately dismissed the first patent with prejudice—leaving only the second patent, which was not the subject of any IPR.

The defendant nonetheless charged ahead with its motion to stay, arguing that it should get a stay anyway:

A stay of the suit pending resolution of PAN’s instituted IPR petition on the ’641 patent will streamline the issues in this case, even if the ’641 patent is dismissed. . . . Regarding the ’237 patent [which is not subject to an IPR], a stay is appropriate regardless of whether the ’641 patent is dismissed because there is substantial overlap between the two Asserted Patents. Both patents share an identical specification and the claims of the ’237 patent substantially overlap with the claims of the ’641 patent. . . . Indeed, during motion to dismiss briefing, the parties and the Court treated claims 14 and 18 of the ’237 patent as representative of all asserted claims of both patents. . . . Even BT’s infringement contentions are replete with internal cross-references, repeatedly relying on the “mapping” of representative ’237 patent claims to argue infringement of the ’641 patent. . . . The PTAB’s institution decision on the ’641 patent relies on the same evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success as the PTAB’s decision on the ’237 patent for corresponding claim limitations.
. . .
Because of this significant overlap, the PTAB’s final written decision as to the ’641 patent could dramatically simplify the case or, at the very least, would be highly instructive as to the ’237 patent. The reasoning and written record from the PTAB on the instituted IPR will be relevant to at least claim construction and invalidity of both Asserted Patents. Accordingly, a stay will remove the possibility of onerous, redundant, and potentially inconsistent rulings, and narrow the issues in this case. . . . A stay will thus conserve judicial and party resources as to validity of the Asserted Patents.

Id., D.I. 101 at 1-2. The Court did not buy ...

View

"A Physicist, a Chemist, and an Economist Find Themselves on a Desert Island with a Single Can of Food . . ."

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 7, 2024
Apportionment Daubert

Island
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Visiting Judge Wolson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a colorful opinion on Monday. It starts with a joke:

Economists love assumptions. One joke recites that a physicist, a chemist, and an economist find themselves on a desert island with a single can of food. The physicist offers to calculate the force needed to use a coconut to open the can. The chemist offers to make a solution that will eat through the can’s top. The economist tells them they are making it too complicated and just to assume a can opener.

Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., C.A. No. 17-770-JDW, at 1 (D. Del. Feb 5, 2024).

The opinion involves an …

View

What's New in Judge Hall's Revised Form Scheduling Order for Patent Cases?

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 5, 2024
PGR Scheduling Order

Scheduling Order

Last month, after her elevation to the bench as a district judge, Judge Hall issued a revised form scheduling order.

I think it's worth paying attention to what changes, even if the changes may not directly apply in your case, because it shows what the judges are focused on and thinking about.

Plus, it usually doesn't hurt to comply with a judge's newest procedures even if they are not required by the (outdated) scheduling order in your case.

So, what's new?

Stating the Meaning of "Plain and Ordinary Meaning"

Judge Hall adopted a set of additional requirements for joint claim construction briefs. Like all of our current judges, she uses Judge Andrews' procedure of a joint claim construction brief. But …

View

Longstanding FDA Practice

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 1, 2024
Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Administrative law is famously labyrinthine. And not the fun kind of labyrinth with awesome bull-headed dudes.

"You totally rule Asterion" "I totally already know that" AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Today's case deals with an FDA practice -- not even a regulation! -- that had an outsized effect on an ANDA.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH, C.A. No. 23-556-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2024) (R&R) was a declaratory judgment action spawned from an earlier ANDA dispute. In that earlier case, Mylan had filed given a Paragraph IV certification as to several of Bayer's orange book patents for Xarelto, and a Paragraph III certification as to another.

(Eds. Note - if you're wondering what a paragraph IV certification is, you should probably just stop here, this one gets pretty weedsy and the jokes are mostly over).

When all was said and done in that earlier case, one of the patents was invalid, and another Bayer never sued on at all, apparently conceding the product did not infringe. Mylan thus should have been able to launch as soon as the paragraph III patent expired.

But there was a twist. Bayer was ...

View
Older

Archive