A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


MN
The Honorable Maryellen Noreika

Reminder: Stipulations to Expand Page Limits Are Frequently Denied

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 13, 2024
Page Limits

Stack of Papers
Christa Dodoo, Unsplash

This is something we've talked about before, but the blog is always picking up new readers, so I figured it's worth revisiting for the newcomers.

Yesterday, Judge Noreika denied a stipulation to extend the page limits for the briefing on a motion to dismiss from the default 20/20/10 (opening/answering/reply) to 30/30/10:

ORAL ORDER re 16 Stipulation Regarding Motion to Dismiss - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation is DENIED. The Court will not extend the page limits. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 11/12/2024. (dlw) (Entered: 11/12/2024)

Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. v. Curium US LLC, C.A. NO. 24-1161-MN, D.I. 17 (D. Del. Nov. 12, 2024).

The stipulation had sought additional pages …

View

Patent Claims Withdrawn Just Minutes Before Trial Are Gone for Good

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 26, 2024
JMOL Trial

"Your honor, we'd like to drop most of our claims." "Ok, but you're not picking them back up." AI-Generated, displayed with permission

True D. Del. patent litigators know that, no matter which side you're on, you're going to have to narrow your claims and defenses before trial. It's just unwise and unworkable to go into a five-day trial with 100 claims, or with 30 prior art references and hundreds (or millions) of potential obviousness combinations. There isn't time to cover it all.

That said, sometimes the parties in patent cases delay case narrowing for a long time. And while the Court will often narrowing, it doesn't do that in every case. Instead, judges sometimes take the approach that …

View

Fixing a Judgment: Rule 59 vs. Rule 60

Andrew E. Russell, May 13, 2024
FRCP 59 FRCP 60

I know which one I'd prefer.
I know which one I'd prefer. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Because cases tend to go away rapidly over time, either through settlement or on the merits, attorneys tend to be less experienced with motions that come up later in the case, particularly things that come up after the judgment (other than post-trial motions), or even after appeal.

One example is a motion to alter or amend a judgment under FRCP 59(e). You just don't see them that often. So I thought it was worth talking about a Rule 59(e) motion that the Court addressed last week.

In The United States of America v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2103 (D. Del.), the plaintiff argued that the …

View

Judge Noreika Denies § 101 Motion Without Addressing Merits Where Scheduling Order Permits Assertion of Additional Claims

Andrew E. Russell, May 10, 2024
MTD Motion to Dismiss

Pixelated Game Over screen on an oversized PAC-MAN arcade machine
Sigmund, Unsplash

Judge Noreika issued an interesting order yesterday denying a § 101 motion to dismiss. According to the docket, shortly after the defendant filed its motion to dismiss—and contrary to what we found when we last looked at this—the Court directed the parties to meet-and-confer on a proposed schedule.

While the motion to dismiss was pending, the Court held a scheduling conference and issued a scheduling order. In it, the parties agreed to a real case narrowing proposal (without court intervention!), with plaintiff to initially cut back to 20 asserted claims per patent and 50 total by initial contentions, and then further cut back to 25 total just before final contentions.

After the Court entered the schedule, …

View

Court Rejects Parties' Joint Request to Defer Case Scheduling Until After the Markman Hearing and Claim Construction Order

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 15, 2023
Litigation Scheduling Order

Not the hoped-for result.
Not the hoped-for result. Michael Jin, Unsplash

Sometimes it's nice to know what doesn't work.

In AlterWAN, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1544-MN (D. Del.), the parties stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement after the Court construed certain terms of the patent, and then appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit vacated the stipulated judgment because it found it was not specific enough, and remanded the case. See AlterWAN, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 63 F.4th 18, 23 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e cannot ‘ascertain the basis for the judgment’ of non-infringement, . . . because the parties did not adequately explain how the claim construction rulings related to the accused systems.”).

On remand, the …

View

Court Denies § 101 Motion, Holding That "address[ing] § 101 issues in . . . seriatim . . . is not a good use of the Court's time"

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 25, 2023
Motion to Dismiss Congestion

Terracotta Warriors
Aaron Greenwood, Unsplash

Along the lines of on Friday's post, Judge Noreika issued an order in a different case this week denying a § 101 motion because it addressed only a subset of claims, and suggested that more claims may be asserted:

ORAL ORDER re (10 in 1:23-cv-00174-MN) (9 in 1:23-cv-00220-MN) MOTION to Dismiss - Defendants have filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that claim 1 in two of the four asserted patents is directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. . . . Defendants state in a footnote that they are not addressing other claims, but that very same footnote suggests that the Court may face additional § 101 arguments in the future should Plaintiff add further asserted claims from the two patents at issue in the motion and that the Court may also later have to address § 101 with respect to the remaining two patents not subject to the present motion. (C.A. No. 23-220, D.I. 10 at 2 n.2). Given that Defendants' § 101 motions suggest that the Court will be forced to address § 101 issues in this case seriatim and because doing so is not a good use of the Court's time, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss are DENIED without prejudice to renew as appropriate during summary judgment. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 10/23/2023.

AlmondNet, Inc. v. Freewheel Media, Inc., C.A. No. 23-220 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2023).

What was in the footnote? An admission that the motion doesn't resolve all of the claims:

This motion is directed to only two claims—claim 1 of the ’307 patent and claim 1 of the ’249 patent—because they are the only claims of those patents that the Complaint alleges Defendants infringe. . . . While Plaintiffs could conceivably assert other claims of the ’307 and ’249 patents if the Court grants this motion, they would do so at their peril because those other claims add only incidental limitations to the two at issue here. Thus, resolution of this motion will likely dispose of two of the four asserted patents in this case. Moreover, because Plaintiffs’ patents are all similar—and all face similar obstacles under Section 101—Defendants believe that deciding this motion now will streamline and promote resolution of this entire case, and possibly of other AlmondNet cases as well, since they involve similar or overlapping patents. . . . Accordingly, Defendants believe that deciding this motion now, at the Rule 12 stage, will be an efficient use of the Court’s resources.

Id., D.I. 10 at 2 n.2.

This outcome is not unusual, but it's definitely something to keep in mind when evaluating ...

View

In Response to § 101 Motion, Judge Noreika Orders Plaintiff to Identify Asserted Claims (a Prelude to Denial?)

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 22, 2023
MTD Motion to Dismiss

"How many more claims will we assert? I'm glad you asked..." Klim Musalimov, Unsplash

We noted last year how Judge Noreika has sometimes denied § 101 motions to dismiss that challenge large numbers of claims, holding that it is more efficient to deal with such motions at the SJ stage (where, presumably, the case would be narrowed).

This week, the Court addressed a § 101 motion in Global Tel*Link Corporation v. JACS Solutions, Inc., C.A. No. 23-500-MN (D. Del.). The motion seeks a § 101 ineligibility finding for 5 claims across 5 asserted patents—i.e., one claim per patent. That's all the plaintiff asserted in the complaint. Id., D.I. 20.

In response, the plaintiff (wisely) argued …

View

"[T]he briefing is so lacking that it borders on comical . . . The Court is truly dumbfounded at Plaintiffs’ failure to cite any portion of the trial record . . . ."

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 2, 2023
Contributory Infringement Judgment as a Matter of Law

Artist's illustration of one of the parties' briefs.
Artist's illustration of one of the parties' briefs. Carl Tronders, Unsplash

I wanted to call out the interesting quote in the title, which comes from an opinion Judge Noreika issued on Friday granting-in-part post-trial motions in a patent case.

The quote is in the context of a motion for JMOL of no post-suit indirect infringement because the accused infringer didn't encourage users to infringe. The Court was very disappointed in the parties' briefing:

[T]he Court must still address Defendants’ remaining complaint as to indirect infringement. Defendants argue that there was no evidence at trial to suggest that they encourage others to infringe the ’502 and ’386 Patents, which is required for a finding of inducement liability. On this point, …
View

A Handy Reminder that LR 16.4(b) Exists (Be Careful About Those Stips Extending the Fact Discovery Deadline)

Andrew E. Russell, June 23, 2023
Stipulation

Puzzle
Sigmund, Unsplash

As we've mentioned, Local Rule 16.4(b) must be one of the most frequently-forgotten local rules in the District of Delaware. It sets forth that a party must include certain things in a stipulation extending the fact discovery or trial dealine:

Unless otherwise ordered, a request for an extension of deadlines for completion of discovery or postponement of the trial shall be made by motion or stipulation prior to expiration of the date deadline, and shall include the following:
(a) The reasons for the request; and
(b) Either a supporting affidavit by the requesting counsel’s client or a certification that counsel has sent a copy of the request to the client.

LR 16.4.

I noted …

View

This Is Not A Blog Post

Nathan R. Hoeschen, June 1, 2023
Ex Parte Communication

It takes a lot to get a legitimate audible laugh out of us at IPDE, but Judge Noreika managed it with one of her orders this week:

On 5/25/2023, the Court issued an Oral Order stating in part that "[t]he Court will not...accept further ex parte emails." Nevertheless, on 5/30/2023, the Court received an ex parte email stating: "We are not attempting to have an ex parte communication entered into the files. By the attached letter, we are attempting to comply with this Court's orders. Will you please provide the Honorable Judge Noreika the attached letter." The Court does not accept ex parte communications. The Court notes, however, that the referenced "attached letter" states that the patents-in-suit are "no longer …
View
Older

Archive