A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


IP
Intellectual Property

Last-Second Claim Construction Argument, Offered at Hearing, Saves Patent from § 101 Motion to Dismiss

Andrew E. Russell, March 22, 2022
MTD § 101

Plaintiff Trident Holdings, LLC at oral argument, pointing to a claim construction
Kedar Gadge, Unsplash

Having a legitimate claim construction dispute that would lead to subject matter eligibility is a great way to survive a § 101 motion. Ideally, obviously, that argument should be set forth in an answering brief. But an opinion yesterday describes how a patentee was able to avoid a negative result on its § 101 motion through claim construction arguments offered at oral argument:

[Plaintiff] Trident suggested for the first time at oral argument that the “optimization engine” and “adaptive scoring” limitations required construction before the Court decides eligibility. . . . That claim construction wasn’t expressly raised until the oral argument suggests that [Trident] may not have actually thought there was a claim construction issue …
View

Always Leave the Court Enough Time Between SJ/Daubert Briefing and the Pretrial Conference

Andrew E. Russell, March 21, 2022
Stipulation KB

Caution Tape
Hiroshi Kimura, Unsplash

A reader helpfully flagged a stipulation denial by Judge Noreika last week (thank you!). The parties had a pretrial conference scheduled for July 18, 2022, and stipulated to move a number of deadlines, including for Daubert briefing. They moved the Daubert motion reply deadline from May 20, 2022 (52 days before the PTC) to June 10, 2022 (38 days before the PTC).

Judge Noreika denied the stipulation without comment. They smartly refiled, but without the Daubert deadline adjustment. This time it went through just fine, albeit with a comment stating that the Daubert deadlines were not moving:

SO ORDERED re 192 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME . . . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Daubert motion/briefing schedule set by D.I. 134 shall NOT be extended ...
View

Judge Burke Declines to Find Non-Infringement in Daubert Context; Gives Thoughts on Proliferation of Summary Judgment Motions

Andrew E. Russell, March 15, 2022
Summary Judgment Non-Infringement

These dandelions are popping up like SJ motions!
These dandelions are popping up like SJ motions! Jonne Huotari, Unsplash

Today, in Personal Audio v. Google, C.A. No. 17-1751-CFC-CJB (D. Del.), Judge Burke addressed an apparent request for the Court to find non-infringement based on a claim construction issue, which came up for the first time in the context of a Daubert motion to exclude expert testimony.

The Court expressed some initial sympathy for the non-infringement argument, suggesting it may have had some merit:

[T]he Court notes more generally that the issue underlying Defendant’s Motion is Defendant’s assertion that the claim construction for “sequencing file,” . . . requires that “you can’t use a copy of the sequencing file to control playback and respon[d] to …
View

What Does It Take for "Unclean Hands" and "Prosecution Laches" Affirmative Defenses to Actually Survive a Motion to Strike?

Andrew E. Russell, March 14, 2022
Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses

These hands actually look pretty clean.
These hands actually look pretty clean. Nathan Dumlao, Unsplash

Defendants in patent cases often seem to throw in somewhat obscure affirmative defenses with little or no factual support. "Unclean hands" is a classic example. Defendants will sometimes seem to include defenses like unclean hands and prosecution latches with no real factual support (and, I suspect, not always the best grasp on what those defenses really mean).

Judge Stark issued an opinion today on a motion to strike "unclean hands" and "prosecution laches" defenses offers an example of what happens when a defendant actually does adequately support these defenses.

First, the standard: to succeed on a motion to strike affirmative defenses, the insufficiency must be "clearly apparent":

"[P]ursuant to Rule …
View

Stay Motion Denial Results in Guidance for the Parties—and for the PTAB

Andrew E. Russell, March 9, 2022
Motion to Stay IPR

Stay!
Stay! Taylor Kopel, Unsplash

Pre-institution stays can be tough to achieve, but they are sometimes granted. Even when denied, though, a pre-institution stay may have other benefits, including that the Court may be willing to offer guidance on what to do—and what may happen—if the IPR is instituted.

An order from Magistrate Judge Burke on Friday is a good example. In eBuddy Technologies B.V. v. LinkedIn Corporation, C.A. No. 20-1501-RGA-CJB (D. Del.), the defendant moved for a pre-institution stay pending IPR. Judge Buke denied it:

ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant's motion to stay the case pending resolution of [un-instituted] inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings . . . , hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED without prejudice to renew in light of the following: (1) For reasons it has previously expressed, the Court is not typically inclined to grant a stay in favor of IPR proceedings when a case has been moving forward for a while and when the PTAB has not yet determined whether to initiate review of any of the patents-in-suit. . . . .; (2) That outcome seems particularly ...
View

What Are Technology Tutorials in Patent Cases, and Are They Worth It?

Andrew E. Russell, March 2, 2022
Technology Tutorial Summary Judgment

Looks like they went with the low-cost version
Looks like they went with the low-cost version Markus Winkler, Unsplash

In the District of Delaware, five of our eight judges use form scheduling orders that provide a deadline for the submission of a "Technology Tutorial" around the time of claim construction.

Former Judge Stark required the parties to submit a tech tutorial in patent cases with the opening claim construction brief. Judge Stark's form order, for example, provided that:

Tutorial Describing the Technology and Matters in Issue. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the parties shall provide the Court, no later than the date on which their opening claim construction briefs are due, a tutorial on the technology at issue. In that regard, the parties may separately …
View

Chief Judge Connolly Bifurcates Patent Trial: Infringement First, then Invalidity, Damages, and Willfulness

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 26, 2022
Trial Trial Procedure

Bifurcated Cake
Henry Be, Unsplash

Bifurcation into liability and damages phases used to be common, with former Judge Robinson often splitting liability and damages, at one point saying that “bifurcation is appropriate, if not necessary, in all but exceptional patent cases.” Dutch Branch of Streamserve Dev. AB v. Exstream Software, LLC, C.A. No. 08-343-SLR, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76006, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2009).

These days, bifurcation still happens here, but it is a bit less common than it was back then.

Earlier this month, though, Chief Judge Connolly raised bifurcation in a way I hadn't heard of, suggesting that the parties split infringement from invalidity and other issues, with jury deliberations in between:

At …
View

Likelihood of Stay Pending IPR in W.D. Texas vs. Delaware

Emily S. DiBenedetto, Feb. 23, 2022
IPR Stay

Today, we analyze the District of Delaware's propensity to grant stays pending IPR decisions, as compared to the Western District of Texas. Here are the big takeaways:

  • Prior to IPR institution, motions to stay are almost always denied in D. Del.;
  • Judge Albright of W.D. Tex. has denied 40% of motions (i.e. two motions) to stay pending instituted IPRs, but there is not much data available yet;
  • D. Del. has denied about 28% of motions (i.e. 16 out of 58) to stay pending instituted IPRs in the last four years;
  • D. Del. receives far more motions to stay pending IPR than W.D. Tex., and grants them just over half the time (~60% in the last 4 years, …
View

Chief Judge Connolly Limits Parties to 10 Claim Terms (Or, Why It's Helpful to Pay Attention to Seemingly-Obscure Precedent)

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 23, 2022
10 Terms Stipulation

As frequent readers of this blog already know, some judges in Delaware have limited parties to a total of 10 terms for construction across all asserted patents.

We've noted at least one previous instance where Chief Judge Connolly seemed to limit the parties to 10 claim construction disputes. Last week, the Court made an even clearer statement on the issue.

The parties in MG FreeSites Ltd v. ScorpCast, LLC, C.A. No. 20-1012-CFC-JLH (D. Del.) filed their joint claim chart in advance of claim construction, and listed 15 terms in dispute. They also included a footnote smartly noting Chief Judge Connolly's practice not to permit argument on indefiniteness at the claim construction stage.

They then filed a stipulation …

View

Your IPR Succeeded? Congrats! Now Go to Trial on Infringement, But You're Estopped from Claiming Invalidity

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 8, 2022
Collateral Estoppel IPR

PTAB trailhead
PTAB trailhead Joshua Sukoff, Unsplash

During some research the other day, I came across the below order that Judge Noreika issued last summer.

A defendant had moved in limine to exclude three of the four asserted claims of a patent from trial, after it prevailed on those claims in an IPR. Easy motion, right?

No. Judge Noreika held that, under Federal Circuit precedent, collateral estoppel does not prevent plaintiff from asserting those claims at trial until the decision is final. And the decision is not final until the appeal is exhausted:

Federal Circuit case law suggests that an IPR decision does not have preclusive effect until that decision is either affirmed or the parties waive their appeal …
View
Newer
Older

Archive