A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware

The Honorable Richard G. Andrews

As we've mentioned previously, it has been Judge Andrews' practice for the past couple years to summarily reject filings that seal exhibits in their entirety, with an order like the following:

Aretm Kniaz, Unsplash
The redacted filings (D.I. 453 , 454 , and 458 ) are REJECTED because parts of them are redacted in their entirety. Absent a compelling reason, supported by a statement under oath by a party, redactions in their entirety are impermissible; redactions must be done so as to redact the least possible amount of the materials submitted. Failure to make a good faith attempt at such redactions may result in sanctions, the most common of which would be simply unsealing the entire filing. Redacting …

Goodbye, 93-page joint claim construction brief
Goodbye, 93-page joint claim construction brief AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Judge Andrews' form scheduling order for patent cases requires a joint claim chart. In that chart, in addition to listing the constructions, the Court requires the parties to explain why the parties are seeking construction of each term:

The Joint Claim Construction Chart should include an explanation of why resolution of the dispute makes a difference.

Judge Andrews added this requirement in early 2023. I haven't seen much activity on his dockets related to it—until last week.

In Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., C.A. No. 22-782-RGA (D. Del.), the parties filed a joint claim construction chart. The chart included 21 terms and, each time, the parties …

Look, I get it. We write about redactions alot. Andrew wrote about redactions yesterday. I begged him not to, but he was like "shut up, I do what I want" before threatening me with the broken end of a bottle.

Actual reenactment
Actual reenactment AI-Generated, displayed with permission

But alas, I have lived long enough to see myself become the villain of this blog. Judge Andrews issued an opinion the other day that had some guidance on redactions that was too helpful not to share (if a bit disheartening for the budding redactors). Both parties in Regenxbio Inc. f/k/a ReGenX v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1226, D.I. 249 (D. Del Feb 22, 2024) (Oral Order) filed timely notices of …

Disappointment Ice Cream
Sarah Kilian, Unsplash

In Exeltis USA, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., C.A. No. 22-434-RGA-SRF (D. Del.), plaintiff asserted infringement of claims from six patents. Back in July, 2023, Judge Andrews ordered the plaintiff to narrow its case to seven asserted claims across all of the patents prior to trial, which is set for Monday, February 26, 2024.

On Tuesday of this week, the Court issued its ruling on several pre-trial claim construction disputes. Plaintiff lost some of the disputes and, apparently, decided that it needed to stipulate to non-infringement of that claim.

With one of its seven claims out of the case, and with less than a week to go before trial, Plaintiff sought leave to re-assert one …

This is a
This is a "weight-shift controlled personal hydrofoil watercraft" U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044

Here at IP/DE, we try to have substantive, funny posts where we can all learn something about litigation in DE while being mildly amused.

Sometimes, though, all we get to be is mildly amused. This will be one of those posts.

Just look at this oral order:

ORAL ORDER: The deadline for Waydoos brief in opposition to the Motion for Permanent Injunction is extended to five minutes after I resolve the pending motion to withdraw (assuming I permit withdrawal) or until a date to be set (assuming I deny permission to withdraw). I note that the record to date appears to support the conclusion that Waydoo is …

The big apple: The home of the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and (apparently) precedent permitting late-served cross-motions for summary judgment.
The big apple: The home of the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and (apparently) precedent permitting late-served cross-motions for summary judgment. Michael Discenza, Unsplash

In Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd., C.A. No. 21-339-RGA (D. Del.), plaintiff moved for summary judgment of patent eligibility, and defendant filed an answering brief.

At the same time as its answering brief, however, defendant filed a late "cross-motion" for summary judgment, asking the Court to not only deny plaintiff's motion, but to grant summary judgment of ineligibility. Defendant devoted about 9 pages of its 40-answering brief to arguing against plaintiff's motion and in favor of its own affirmative "cross-motion" for a determination of ineligibility.

Plaintiff …

It's impressive when an attorney files a short letter and gets the Court to do something that it is not often inclined to do.
It's impressive when an attorney files a short letter and gets the Court to do something that it is not often inclined to do. Immo Wegmann, Unsplash

The District of Delaware generally suspended its mediation program in 2021, and mediations before a magistrate judge rarely happen in patent cases these days (although they do sometimes happen in some other cases, such as employment cases).

Since then, parties have sometimes moved to private mediations—especially when ordered to—but generally in my experience the overall number of cases that go through mediation has declined, and there aren't a huge number of local patent-case mediators.

When we last discussed this, we noted from comments at the 2023 Bench and Bar conference that …

The doctrine of equivalents is often treated as the legal equivalent of going "c'mon....c'mon! its all the same."

whatsamatta you?
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

It's not uncommon to see it included in infringement contentions in terms that just note that, to the extent the noodlewiggler (TM) does not literally infringe claim 38 of of the '123 patent, it's insubstantially different, and performs the same function in the same way to achieve the same result, and is lame."

Judge Andrews issued an opinion today that neatly illustrates the problem with that tactic. The defendant in Carrum Techs., LLC v. Ford Motor Comp. C.A. No. 18-1647-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2023) (Mem. Op.) moved for summary judgment on the basis of a …

Timing a 12(c) motion is a bit tricky.

By definition, you raise it after your would normally file a motion to dismiss, as the pleadings are closed. You can file one as late as you want, as long as it's "early enough not to delay trial." Honestly, I'd never seen a motion denied for being too late—until now!

He's a slow reader
He's a slow reader AI-Generated, displayed with permission

The defendant in Ecolab Inc. et al v. DuBois Chemicals, Inc., C.A. No. 21-567-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 25, 2023) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings at the same time as its SJ and Daubert motions, which was about 5 months before trial. Neither party devoted more than a few of their 40 allotted pages to the 12(c) motion—focusing instead on the SJ and Daubert issues.

(Note—the parties managed to fit the 12(c) motion briefing into their overall page limits for "dispositive motions" in the scheduling order. I think that's probably correct, but I've never seen an opinion actually addressing whether a later-filed 12(c) motion must adhere to those limits. It certainly looks like gamesmanship to give yourself an extra 20 page brief at summary judgment time, but what about a 12(c) motion filed 6 months earlier? Would those pages need to be deducted from a later SJ motion page count? I encourage someone braver than me to give it a try and see how it goes.)


Judge Andrews was having none of it and ...

Dart in Target
Silvan Arnet, Unsplash

Both parties in Wrinkl, Inc. v. Meta Platforms Inc., C.A. No. 20-1345-RGA (D. Del.) agreed that the case should be dismissed after the PTAB invalidated 50 of the 54 asserted claims, but disagreed about whether the remaining 4 claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff claimed that it did not intend to assert the remaining claims, but that it should retain the right to, and that it is unaware of caselaw holding that the Court cannot dismiss some claims with prejudice and some without.

The defendant argued that the Court cannot split up the claims, and must dismiss all or nothing with prejudice:

Defendants contend there is no legal support or precedent …