A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

Chief Judge Connolly Cancels the April 11 Litigation Funding & Disclosure Hearings

Andrew E. Russell, April 10, 2023
Litigation Funding Standing Orders

I don't know if Air Canada actually flies here.
I don't know if Air Canada actually flies here. John McArthur, Unsplash

There were two litigation-funding related hearings set forth tomorrow in Chief Judge Connolly cases. Both were canceled today.

The first was in the Nimitz cases, C.A. Nos. 21-1362, 21-1855, and 22-413. As we discussed last week, the Court set this hearing after Nimitz failed to produce the broad formation- and funding-related discovery that the Court required from it.

Later last week, the plaintiff in that case produced the required documents. Today, the Court canceled the hearing so that it would have time to review the recent production:

ORAL ORDER: Whereas (1) on Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 4:23 p.m., Mr. Pazuniak submitted to the Court documents …
View

A Mavexar Refresher

Emily DiBenedetto, April 7, 2023
Mavexar Litigation Funding

Litigation funding has become a popular topic this year, deserving of its own synopsis. For those who missed out on the recent blow-by-blow events as they happened, relive the saga below.

This is a bit lengthy. You've been warned. Pour yourself a cup of tea first and get comfortable.

Story Plot Points
Emily DiBenedetto

The Exposition: Discovery on Litigation Funding is a Mixed Bag

To set the stage, let's discuss litigation funding disputes in the District of Delaware before the most recent developments. Over the past few years, discovery disputes regarding litigation funding issues have produced mixed results. The Court sometimes grants motions to compel litigation funding materials, and other times denies them, and may (rarely) conduct an in camera review to evaluate …

View

Clear and Unmistakable

Nathan R. Hoeschen, April 6, 2023
Claim Construction

I was trolling though recent opinions in search of a blog post topic (you're welcome) when I stumbled upon a recent Markman order discussing disclaimer. Now normally Markman orders aren't the most fecund ground for a post. But seeing the pro forma language about how prosecution history disclaimer required a "clear and unmistakable" disavowal I had to ask myself—"do they ever find that?"

I don't know why I asked for it to be Baron Harkonnen, but I did and now you have to see it too
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

The answer, is "not really, no." Frequent readers will know that I normally do the last 10 opinions, because I have forgotten all the math I used to know and its easy to calculate the percentages. Here though, I looked through the last 10 and was still at 0. So I pressed on until we hit a winner at the 15th oldest decision. For those with calculators, that's a 6.7% success rate.

What really surprised me about this number was that I only had to go back 2 months to find 15 cases where a defendant had alleged disclaimer, given the abysmal success rate. I'll update this post the next time we get a winner to see if we can piece together a unified theory of what makes these arguments work.

View

How to Insta-Waive Your Objections

Andrew E. Russell, April 5, 2023
R&R Objections to R&Rs

Look closely—down at the bottom, where the huge bolt of lightning meets the hill, are defendant's R&R objections
Look closely—down at the bottom, where the huge bolt of lightning meets the hill, are defendant's R&R objections Brandon Morgan, Unsplash

R&R objections can be a minefield for attorneys. First, the governing rules are fairly stringent, and are set forth in multiple places (including Local Rule 72.1 and a separate standing order). Second, I think it's fair to say that most judges are not eager to have to review another judge's work and potentially reverse it if they don't have to, so the rules for objections tend to be enforced.

Here are some examples of things that parties sometimes miss. The objecting party must:

  1. "[S]pecify the portions of the findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for each objection, . . . supported by legal authority."
  2. Include a certification stating that "the objections do not raise new legal/factual arguments" or identifying good cause for new legal/factual arguments.
  3. Set forth its objections in a single, 10-page opening brief with no reply brief, and the page limit is generally strictly enforced.
  4. File courtesy copies of "of all filings (e.g., motions, briefs, appendices) associated with the matter to which the R&R"—this can be easy to miss, and can result in waiver.
  5. Identify the exact standard of review.

That last one, identifying the standard of review, is easier said than done. The standard of review for R&R objections can be tricky, because ...

View

New Discovery Order in One of the Mavexar Cases

Andrew E. Russell, March 31, 2023
Mavexar Litigation Funding

Mavexar Crab

We haven't written about Mavexar for a while. But a new order today shows that the Court hasn't let up.

We discussed last year how, following a hearing in which the nature of Mavexar came out, the Court ordered the parties and attorneys in some of the Mavexar cases to submit to the Court a broad range of communications among the plaintiffs, Mavexar, and their attorneys.

Today, the Court issued a similar order in an additional case, Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., C.A. No. 22-572-CFC (D. Del.). That case was the one at issue in the November 10 hearing, where the owner of Backertop testified that she is a paralegal who is married to …

View

The Stuff of Nightmares: Plaintiff Makes Insufficient JMOL Motion During Trial, Waiving Its Post-Trial JMOL Motion Entirely

Andrew E. Russell, March 29, 2023
JMOL Waiver

Bye bye, JMOL motion
Bye bye, JMOL motion Ioana Cristiana, Unsplash

In most patent cases that make it through trial, the losing party files a post-trial motion seeking judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), asking the judge to override the jury and find for them instead. It seems fairly uncommon to see a case that went to trial and did not settle that doesn't involve a post-trial JMOL motion from one side or the other.

Under the federal rules, to file a post-trial JMOL motion under FRCP 50(b), you must first file a JMOL motion during trial under FRCP 50(a). That motion must be made before the case is is submitted to the jury, and must "specify the …

View

Secrets, Secrets Are No Fun . . .

Nathan R. Hoeschen, March 28, 2023
Sealing Redactions

It seems like only yesterday I was discussing the rare case where a third party moved to unseal the docket in a DE case. In fact, it was 12 days ago—time flies when blogging.

Time flying
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Well it happened again, and this time we have an opinion.

The intervenors in CBV, Inc. v. ChanBond, LLC, C.A. No. 21-1456 (D. Del. Mar 28, 2023) (Mem. Order) were shareholders in the defendant, Chanbond, who sought to unseal various and sundry filings including the complaint, answer, and briefing on a TRO. The parties (perhaps readers of the blog?) largely agreed to unseal the filings but insisted that the dollar amount of a confidential settlement agreement should remain redacted.

Typically, actual dollar amounts contained in confidential agreements are one of the few things that pass muster on a motion to seal. The twist was that the dollar amount had accidentally been filed publicly in a different case months earlier.

Billy tells secrets, it is his truest nature
Billy tells secrets, it is his truest nature AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Oops.

Nevertheless, the parties (as well as several third-party signatories to the agreement who submitted their own briefs) insisted that ...

View

How Much is Too Much? The Answer: Three Discovery Dispute Teleconferences in Two Months (Involving Nine Disputes)

Andrew E. Russell, March 24, 2023
Discovery Dispute Congestion

"From now on, your discovery disputes will be heard at the summit . . . " Alexander Milo, Unsplash

It's always good to know the limits when it comes to discovery disputes. In some cases, parties just can't seem to work together on discovery, and the parties end up bringing a lot of disputes.

At some point, the number of disputes may push the Court over the line. Famously (in Delaware—so perhaps not "famously" at all), former Chief Judge Sleet used to limit parties to three discovery disputes in patent cases before requiring them to seek leave. I don't know of any similar explicit limits set by any of our current judges, but pushing things too far can still …

View

Judge Andrews Finds That "Analysis Engine" and "Event Classification Engine" Are Means-Plus-Function Terms (And Indefinite)

Andrew E. Russell, March 20, 2023
Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction

This is the kind of engine that has structure.
This is the kind of engine that has structure. Markus Spiske, Unsplash

There are only so many ways to get rid of claims early in the case. One of them is arguing indefiniteness at claim construction, for the judges who permit that.

Indefiniteness at Markman typically invoves either a Nautilus-style argument about a term lacking reasonable certainty, or a § 112 ¶ 6 argument that a means-plus-function term lacks corresponding structure in the specification.

Today, Judge Andrews addressed such a § 112 ¶ 6 argument, and found both that software terms reciting an "engine" were means-plus-function terms, and that the terms lacked corresponding structure in the specification. First, he found that "engine" is a "nonce word" that doesn't refer to a specific structure—breaking with at least one case that found the opposite:

I agree with Defendant that “analysis engine” is a means-plus-function limitation. Defendant has overcome the presumption that “analysis engine” is not subject to § 112, ¶ 6 by showing the claim fails to “recite sufficiently definite structure.” . . . The parties agree that an “engine” in this context refers to a program or part of a program to perform a function or manages data. . . . “Engine” appears to be synonymous with “module,” which is recognized as a common “nonce” word. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (finding “module” to mean “a generic description for software or hardware that performs a specified function” to be a “well-known nonce word”); see also Parity Networks, LLC v. ZyXEL Commc'ns, Inc., 2020 WL 8569299, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020) (finding “engine” was a nonce word in the term “multicast engine”). But see Stragent, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2011 WL 13152568, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2011) (finding “engine” conveyed structure and was not subject to § 112, ¶ 6).

The argument that the "analysis engine" was part of the novelty of the patent was not enough to save it—and that argument may have even hurt the plaintiff ...

View

Judge Fallon Denies Discovery on Unlaunched, Abandoned, and Future Products—But Defendant Can't Redact That Information from Otherwise Responsive Docs

Andrew E. Russell, March 13, 2023
Document Production Accused Products

Abandoned
Cédric Dhaenens, Unsplash

Judge Fallon made an opinion public today that deals with whether a plaintiff can get discovery on unlaunched, abandoned, and future products in the lead up to a preliminary injunction hearing. The Court held that discovery on those products was not proportional to the needs of the case:

Zwift has shown that the document discovery requested by Wahoo is not proportional to the needs of the case at this stage of the proceedings. (D.I. 72) The complaint establishes that Wahoo was aware of Zwift’s unlaunched and abandoned hardware products, yet it did not raise these products in its motion for a preliminary injunction, indicating that the relevance of the requested discovery to the preliminary injunction inquiry …
View
Newer
Older

Archive