A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


JLH
The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall

Some Notable Points from Magistrate Judge Hall's § 101 Denial in RSDI v. Lyft

Andrew E. Russell, July 12, 2021
§ 101 Days 12(b)(6)

Ridesharing
Brecht Denil, Unsplash

Magistrate Judge Hall issued a § 101 R&R today in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1629-RGA-JLH (D. Del.), recommending denial of defendant Lyft's motion to dismiss based on § 101.

The Court found that the patent was not directed to an abstract idea—though it noted that it was a close call—and that, regardless, the invention contained an inventive concept under Step 2 of Alice.

We've all read about dozens (or more) of § 101 opinions over the last few years, but here are a few points of interest from Judge Hall's opinion:

  • Judge Hall closely examined the representativeness of the alleged representative claim, and rejected it as unrepresentative. Choose …
View

Judge Hall Denies Attorneys' Fees, Rejects Argument That ANDA Suit Triggering 30-Month Stay Was Unreasonable

Andrew E. Russell, June 23, 2021
ANDA 30-Month Stay

Pills
HalGatewood.com, Unsplash

Judge Hall today issued an R&R on attorneys fees in In Re Kerydin (Tavaborole) Topical Solution 5% Patent Litigation, MDL No. 19-md-2884-RGA (D. Del. June 23, 2021), an ANDA case.

There, the plaintiff filed suit on four patents even though the PTAB had previously found an earlier patent in the family invalid in an IPR, and even though IPRs were pending on each of the four patents-in-suit.

Filing suit triggered the 30-month stay of FDA approval. Shortly after the suit was filed, one of the defendants moved to stay; plaintiff did not oppose, and actually filed a cross-motion to stay its own action against the other defendants (who opposed).

The Court granted the …

View

Judge Hall Blunts Hemp Processing Company's Bid for Preliminary Injunction

David M. Fry, June 2, 2021
Legal Writing Trade Secret Litigation

Plants
Matthew Brodeur, Unsplash

In a trade secret dispute over THC remediation processes, Judge Hall recently denied a hemp processing company's motion for a preliminary injunction. The redacted version of her opinion came out yesterday, and it gives some helpful guidance for parties litigating trade secret disputes. It also touches on an important tip for legal writers everywhere.

As usual, one of the key questions was whether the plaintiff adequately identified the trade secrets at issue. This requires a careful balancing act—the trade secret needs to be broad enough to cover what the defendant is doing, but narrow enough to qualify for trade secret protection in the first place.

In trying to walk this line, lawyers are often tempted to use terms like "and/or" to keep their options open. In this case, the plaintiff used "and/or" in defining the scope of two of its alleged trade secrets. This ended up playing an important role in Judge Hall's likelihood-of-success analysis:

Starting with (1), SCB’s definition is not only general, it uses the modifier “and/or,” which suggests to the Court that SCB is attempting to claim as a trade secret the idea of oxidizing THC into CBN. If so, the Court rejects it. As SCB acknowledged at oral argument, the process of oxidation, and more particularly the fact that THC oxidizes into CBN, was well known in 2019.
. . .
Although SCB’s position is not entirely clear, its use of the “and/or” modifier in its interrogatory response suggests that it might be seeking to claim as trade secrets each of the individual “parameters and conditions” set forth in its interrogatory response and every possible permutation. As Defendants’ expert points out, that's 57 potential combinations of trade secrets. (D.I. 47 ¶¶ 29, 30.) SCB does not provide separate argument as to any particular permutation, making it impossible for the Court to determine which combinations of “parameters and conditions” it intends to press.

As legal writing experts ...

View

Four+ Page Long Notice of Subsequent Authority Proves Effective

Andrew E. Russell, May 20, 2021
LR 7.1.2 Supplemental Pleading

In Delaware, Local Rule 7.1.2(b) sets deadlines for responding to motions, and states that

Except for the citation of subsequent authorities, no additional papers [other than the opening, answering, and reply briefs] shall be filed absent Court approval.

Based on this rule, parties file "notices of subsequent authorities" to present after-arising citations (and sometimes other content) to the Court.

But some attorneys disagree about just how much argument can accompany the "citation[s]" a notice of subsequent authority. The authority is mixed.

In some cases, the Court has declined to consider notices containing argument that are filed without leave. See, e.g., Forest Labs., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm. LLC, C.A. No. 14-508-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23215, at *51 …

View

Ongoing Congestion Weighs Against Bifurcation

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 25, 2021
Trial Calendar Bifurcation

Artists rendition of the author patiently awaiting the return of jury trials
Artists rendition of the author patiently awaiting the return of jury trials We Don’t Deserve Dogs, Marten Bjork, Unsplash

This week brought to light yet another unexpected side effect of COVID-19 -- it's now harder to win a motion to bifurcate.

This interesting tidbit came to light in Judge Hall's opinion in Evertz Microsystems Ltd. v. Lawo Inc., C.A. No. 19-302, D.I. 259 (D. Del. Feb. 23, 2021). The defendant there moved to bifurcate the infringement and damages cases into separate trials near the close of fact discovery. In denying the motion, Judge Hall noted that the prejudice to the plaintiff, and strain on the Court, of holding two separate trials was greater than it would normally be because it was unlikely the second trial could be scheduled for years:

As the parties both know, this Court currently has an extremely congested docket. It would be difficult to schedule an additional trial in this action; thus, Evertz would likely have to wait additional years to have full resolution of its claims.

Id. at 3.

Its also worth noting that Judge Hall called out the "fairly litigious" nature of the case, with the parties "raising numerous discovery disputes before the Court" leading to concerns that "bifurcating and staying the issue of damages will result in (1) duplicate discovery requests and disputes as those already resolved and (2) new disputes over what is appropriately part of the liability phase versus the damages phase" that would further tax the Court." ...

View

Can You Serve Process on a Foreign Defendant by Email? Maybe.

Jeff Castellano, Feb. 9, 2021
Litigation FRCP 4

Service of process on a foreign defendant can be tricky. If the foreign defendant will not agree to waive service under Rule 4(d), a plaintiff is left with methods of service under Rule 4 that are often complex and time-consuming, and come with no guarantee that the service will ultimately be effective.

And while Rule 4 does not set a deadline for service of process on foreign defendants, as it does for domestic defendants, the time to serve is not unbounded. Helpfully, Rule 4 provides a fallback that opens up the door to other--perhaps less onerous--methods of service, including simply sending an email (in the right circumstances).

When Can You Serve by E-mail?

She just served a defendant in Taiwan
She just served a defendant in Taiwan Brooke Cagle, Unsplash

Last week Magistrate Judge Hall permitted service on a foreign defendant by email pursuant to FRCP 4(f)(3), which provides that, in addition to various other methods of service, service of process may be achieved "by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders."

As Judge Hall recounted, plaintiff DivX LLC first attempted service by certified mail on Taiwanese defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corp., but Realtek apparently refused to accept the mail delivery. ...

View

Relief from a Protective Order: How to Do It and How NOT to Do It

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 5, 2021
Sealing Protective Order

Shield of Sir John Smythe (1534–1607)
Shield of Sir John Smythe (1534–1607), The Met

This week judges in the District of Delaware issued two orders regarding discovery disputes seeking relief from protective orders in patent actions. One granted relief, and one denied it. The contrast between the two is a great illustration of how you should and shouldn't argue for relief from a protective order.

How Not to Do It

In the first action, plaintiff Wildcat sought permission to disclose defendant's materials from the district court in a co-pending IPR to support its secondary considerations of non-obviousness. The protective order specifically allowed this:

All Protected Material shall be used solely for the above-captioned cases or any related appellate proceeding and/or proceedings before the United States …
View

On The Hazards of Talking to Your Witness During a Deposition in Delaware

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 9, 2020
Rule 30.6 Rule 30

hiroshi-kimura-rtX4wxMEI2M-unsplash.jpg
Hiroshi Kimura, Unsplash

Since the early 2000's, the District of Delaware local rules have prohibited talking to a witness about the subject matter of their deposition testimony during a deposition:

RULE 30.6. Depositions Upon Oral Examination.
From the commencement until the conclusion of deposition questioning by an opposing party, including any recesses or continuances, counsel for the deponent shall not consult or confer with the deponent regarding the substance of the testimony already given or anticipated to be given, except for the purpose of conferring on whether to assert a privilege against testifying or on how to comply with a court order.

It's not uncommon for visiting counsel defending depositions in Delaware cases to not know this rule. …

View
Newer

Archive