Judge Williams issued a noteworthy SJ opinion last week in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University, Ltd., C.A. No. 21-1365-GBW (D. Del.).
Cisco involves a DJ action where the accused infringer is challenging the validity of a patent based on the pre-AIA § 102 on sale bar, alleging that a a third party sold a product that embodied the claimed method more than one year before the patent application.
The patentee seemingly agreed with the basic facts, but moved for summary judgment of no invalidity on the theory that the the sales were "secret."
What does "secret" mean here? At least for the purposes of this motion, the parties assume …
The Court seems to be trending towards holding that patent claims dropped during the claim narrowing process are gone for good.
Yesterday, in Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1233-GBW (D. Del.), Judge Williams held that a patentee cannot re-assert claims that it dropped prior to trial:
[T]his Court . . . finds that the case narrowing process in the instant action was even-handed and fair since it required Nexus to narrow its asserted claims and required Exela to narrow its asserted defenses. The fact that Nexus was unsuccessful at trial should not allow Nexus to get a second bite at the apple by now asserting those claims that …
We've talked a lot about how hard it can be to plead indirect infringement and willfulness before Chief Judge Connolly. He set forth his views on the subject in ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1687-CFC-CJB (Mar. 24, 2021), where he held that a complaint cannot form the basis for an allegation of willful infringement in the same action:
[I]n the absence of binding authority to the contrary from the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court, I will adopt the rule that the operative complaint in a lawsuit fails to state a claim for indirect patent infringement where the defendant's alleged knowledge of the asserted patents is based solely on the content of that …
Last week in Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 24-64-JLH (D. Del.), the Court partially granted a motion to compel production of sales documents in a patent case.
The plaintiff moved to compel production of communications between the defendant's "sales force":
The Court should order Apotex to produce communications among its sales force regarding the sale, marketing, pricing, and promotion of Apotex’s NDA product. Eagle’s RFP No. 57 seeks: “All communications between Your sales force, sales personnel, or marketing personnel that refer or relate to the sale, marketing, pricing, and/or promotion of Your NDA [New Drug Application] Product, including but not limited to by way of any group chat, texts, text …
I have no idea what image would go with this, so here is a mildly interested chipmunk.Andrew E. Russell, displayed with permission
Yesterday, Judge Andrews granted two motions to dismiss willfulness allegations for a failure to allege knowledge. The orders are short and sweet, and provide some examples of the kinds of allegations that are not sufficient to allege knowledge of the asserted patent in support of a willfulness claim.
First, in New Directions Technology Consulting, LLC v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., C.A. No. 25-506-RGA (D. Del.), the Court granted the willfulness portion of a motion to dismiss in just three sentences:
The motion to dismiss the willfulness allegations is GRANTED. Alleging that employees of Defendants attended a 2016 presentation on the topic of "Benefits of IP Partnering for Drug Delivery Telemanagement" provides no factual basis for an allegation of willfulness. Nor does the allegation that in 2021 an online article "Patents are Important for Smart Healthcare Products"-- described the patents and that Defendants subscribe to the online publication.
New Directions Technology Consulting, LLC v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., C.A. No. 25-506-RGA, D.I. 18 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2025).
This decision was quick, issuing less than two motions after the motion to dismiss, although it only addressed the motion in part. The Court referred the motion's remaining allegation re: § 101 to Magistrate Judge Tennyson.
"Did I forget to say why we should win the motion?"AI-Generated, displayed with permission
When you're drafting a brief, it can easy to get bogged down in all of the in-the-weeds counter-arguments and surrounding issues, and to kind of forget about the main point you need to make.
Years ago, in a patent case, I wound up needing to write three initial drafts of three summary judgment briefs in a week. Fun, right? The first two came together OK. The third one, not so much. It was a complicated motion involving many potential counter-arguments.
I remember thinking the initial draft was pretty good when I clicked send on the e-mail attaching it. How could it not be? In just …
Whew! The 2025 District of Delaware Bench and Bar conference wrapped up on Friday (has it really been twoyears!?). It was a wonderful event, as always, and the organizers did an amazing job. All of the panels were great, but I particularly enjoyed Judge Andrews' incredible interview of Judge Bryson (and I heard the same from others).
The conference was especially fun for me this year, because I received a lot of in-person feedback about this blog. Thank you all!! One request was to keep our posts short, and I'll try to do that today.
For anyone who missed it, here are some notes from the conference, organized loosely by topic:
I will, in fact, die on this hill—at least until something from the Court shows I'm wrong.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Last year we had a post entitled "Use This One Simple Trick to Not Get Your Summary Judgment Motion Instantly Denied." That post related to motions before judges who require a concise statement of facts with summary judgment motions. The "one simple trick" was that, rather than including a long list of atomic facts like "x said this at deposition" and "lines x:xx - y:yy of the patent specification say z," you state the actual material fact that you are relying on and cite those atomic facts as support for the broader fact.
How many attorneys would have made the choice to re-assert § 101 at trial after conclusively losing on that issue at the MTD stage? Not many, I'm guessing.Oliver Roos, Unsplash
I still remember when, as a first-year associate (circa 2009), a senior attorney explained to me that courts will not hold a patent "valid," and instead will normally only say that it is "not invalid." It seemed like a bit of a silly distinction at the time, but it actually makes perfect sense, and it has come up again and again in my practice since then.
Courts do not typically hold that a patent is "valid" because that would suggest it is impervious to future challenges. Instead, courts often hold that a patent is "not invalid," i.e., that the moving party in a case before the Court failed to show that the patent was invalid due to some circumstance. That language recognizes that another party on another day might yet prove the opposite: that the patent is invalid.
This came up recently in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Natera, Inc., C.A. No. 21-669-GBW (D. Del.). In that case, the defendant had originally brought a motion to dismiss on § 101 grounds, and Judge Stark denied it. Id., D.I. 28 at 7.
Now, almost four years later and in the lead-up to trial, the plaintiff moved in limine to preclude the defendant from re-raising its failed § 101 argument:
Plaintiff "seeks to preclude Natera from presenting argument or evidence regarding patent eligibility of the Asserted Patents under § 101." . . . Plaintiff contends that such preclusion is warranted because (purportedly) "[t]he Court has already spoken on patent eligibility and has ruled that the Asserted Patents are directed to eligible subject matter."
Id., D.I. 325 at 4.
The Court denied the motion, and will permit the defendant to re-raise its § 101 argument at trial. The Court offered ...
Figure 2A -- the figure at issue.U.S. Patent No. 11,012,647
This is an issue I don't recall having seen before. In VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. v. Teledyne Flir, LLC, C.A. No. 25-348 (D. Del.), the plaintiff filed a pretty typical-looking patent complaint, where it alleged infringement of its patent by the defendant's products.
The complaint, however, relied on an allegation that the product was marked as practicing a particular patent, and that figure 2A of that patent showed a circuit that infringed on the plaintiff's patent:
According to VTT, the figure (“Figure 2A”) [of the defendant's own patent] depicts the allegedly infringing functionality. . . . In the complaint, VTT alleges on information …
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
