A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


RGA
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews

§ 101 Denial Based on Representations in Complaint and Claimed Features

Andrew E. Russell, July 6, 2020
MTD § 101

In a brief § 101 opinion today, Judge Andrews denied a MTD based solely on Alice step 2. He relied primarily on allegations in the complaint that various claimed features of the invention were not routine or conventional:

Plaintiff . . . alleges in its amended complaint that the [asserted] claims incorporate “inventive concepts that were not well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time” of invention. . . . For example, the amended complaint alleges that some claims teach ways of displaying performance parameters so that users of both live and archived classes can compete with one another. . . . The amended complaint alleges that these functionalities were nonroutine and unconventional at the time of the invention and helped …
View

Court Posts Public Dial-In for Virtual Bench Trial Starting Today

Andrew E. Russell, July 6, 2020
Virtual Trial Bench Trial

Gavel
Gavel, Bill Oxford, Unsplash

Judge Andrews is holding a virtual bench trial in a contract action today. The Court posted a dial-in for public access:

Remark: The public may access the Bench Trial scheduled to start 7/6/2020 by dialing the following phone number: 571-353-2300, then enter 792973273. The dial-in information provides listening capabilities only. (crb) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

Judge Andrews set forth his reasoning for holding a virtual trial in an order in June:

I had a teleconference with the parties on June 5. I suggested a virtual trial. I did not think it was fair for one side to have lawyers in the courtroom while the other side did not. A virtual trial (by which …
View

Judge Andrews Draws Clear Line on ANDA Inducement Claim

Andrew E. Russell, June 22, 2020
Inducement ANDA

Pill Bottle
Sharon McCutcheon, Unsplash

Judge Andrews today granted a rare Rule 12(c) motion in an ANDA action, entering judgment against the plaintiffs on their inducement claim based on the pleadings alone.

The method claim at issue requires administering a drug "from about 3 hours to about 1 hour" before a colonoscopy.

The accused product's label includes instructions to administer the drug "start[ing] approximately 5 hours prior to [a] colonoscopy," and then to "drink at least three 8-ounce cups . . . of clear liquids . . . at least 2 hours before" the procedure.

Judge Andrews held that those allegations—even if true—cannot show inducement of infringement, even if in practice some amount of infringement would occur. …

View

"Sandbagging" and the District of Delaware

Andrew E. Russell, June 3, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Sandbags
ideadad, Unsplash

In an R&R this week, Magistrate Judge Burke flatly declined to consider a "critical[]" argument raised for the first time in a reply brief:

In their reply brief, Defendants made one other argument, which they failed to raise in their opening brief . . . . (D.I. 37 at 9 (“Critically, neither of these manuals refer to the named defendants in this case[.]”)) Because this argument could have and should have been raised in the opening brief, it has been waived, and so the Court will not consider it here. See McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Italia S.p.A., 840 F. Supp. 2d 801, 803 n.2 (D. Del. 2012); LG Display Co., Ltd. …
View

Judge Andrews Rejects Footnote "Incorporating" Eight Pages of Prior Briefing

Andrew E. Russell, May 29, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Judge Andrews today rejected a portion of a defendant's objections to an R&R because the defendant set forth its objections in "a footnote, which purport[ed] to include about eight pages of the earlier briefing." Sapp et al v. Industrial Action Services, LLC et al, No. 19-912-RGA, at 10 (D. Del. May 29, 2020) (emphasis added).

He held—perhaps not surprisingly—that this "is an insufficient objection." Id.

That said, he did sustain the same defendant's objections to other portions of Magistrate Judge Burke's R&R, although he called the underlying legal issue a "close call." Id. at 8.

View
Newer

Archive