Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation : DE Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney for Patents & Antitrust Litigation in Wilmington, Dover & Newark

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Grape Technology Group, Inc., et al. v. Jingle Networks, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-408-GMS (D.Del., January 9, 2012), the Court denied all three of the post-trial motions filed by the parties which consisted of the motion of plaintiffs for a new trial, the renewed motion of defendant for judgment as a matter of law, and the motion of defendant for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Following a six day trial, the jury had previously rendered a unanimous verdict in favor of defendant Jingle Networks on the issue of infringement with respect to all claims, but also found in favor of plaintiffs on the claims of invalidity. Id. at 1. After considering the entire record, the parties’ post-trial motions and the applicable law, the Court decided to deny all of the parties’ post-trial motions. Id. at 2-23.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Pacific Biosciences of California, et al., Civil Action No. 10-735-SLR (December 22, 2011), the Court denied the motion of Defendant Life Technologies Corporation (“Life”) to sever or stay the claims asserted against it in plaintiff’s complaint. In its motion to sever or stay, Life claimed that it did not commercialize the technology accused of infringement. Id. at 1-2. Life also asserted that the other defendants accused of infringement were its direct competitors and, absent any allegation that Life’s activities or products overlapped with the other defendants in any way, the claims against Life should proceed separately in order to protect Life from an expensive and potentially harmful discovery process. Id. at 2.

The Court found that an issue of fact existed as to whether Life continued to make presentations about the accused Starlight technology after February 2010 and whether such activities would constitute an infringing “offer for sale.” Id. at 3-4. Thus, in light of the commonalities in the accused technologies and the overlap of the accused patents, the Court denied Life’s motion to sever or stay the claims against it. Id. at 5.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 8, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware adopted a Default Standard for Access to Source Code. The default standard applies in pertinent matters absent agreement among the parties.

A copy of the Default Standard for Access to Source Code is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 8, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware adopted a "Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”)". Among other things, the revised Default Standard specifies certain information that must be included in the parties’ initial disclosures and, in patent cases, also sets deadlines for the following:  (1) plaintiffs to identify the accused product(s) and the asserted patent(s) they allegedly infringe, and to produce the file history for each asserted patent, (2) defendants to produce to plaintiffs core technical documents related to the accused product(s) to plaintiffs, (3) plaintiffs to produce to defendants initial infringement contentions, and (4) defendants to produce to plaintiffs initial invalidity contentions.

A copy of the Default Standard in its entirety is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Softview LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-389-LPS (D.Del., December 7, 2011), the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its September 30, 2011 Order granting Plaintiff Softview’s Motion to Amend Its Complaint to add parties and accused devices utilizing Android software.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached hereto.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Report and Recommendation entered by The Honorable Christopher J. Burke in Eastman Chemical Co. v. Alphapet Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-971-LPS-CJB (D.Del., November 10, 2011), the Court granted in part defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation claims asserted by Plaintiff. The Complaint alleged claims against two of the five defendants for patent infringement, a breach of contract claim against four of the five defendants, and a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets against all five defendants. Id. at 1. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part by dismissing without prejudice the breach of contract claim against one of the two defendants it was asserted against and dismissing any claim of breach of implied contract against all defendants. Id. at 2. Defendants’ motion was denied in all other respects. Id.

A copy of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Burke is attached hereto.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 11-965-LPS (D.Del., November 8, 2011 (public version)), the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction seeking an Order from the Court directing Defendants to file papers in a pending, related investigation by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) seeking dismissal of the ITC proceeding. However, in its Order, the Court did state its intent to enter a Scheduling Order in the case that will result in expedited case dispositive motions and/or a trial on the merits of the issue concerning the ownership of the patents-in-suit. Id. at 2.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 8, 2011, The Honorable Richard G. Andrews was sworn in as a United States District Judge for the District of Delaware.  Judge Andrews is former State prosecutor for the state of Delaware, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, and a former law clerk for the Honorable Collins J. Seitz on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Andrews received his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 1981 and his bachelor's degree from Haverford College in 1977.

With the addition of Judge Andrews, all judicial positions currently existing in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware have been filled.  The Court currently has four United States District Judges (Chief Judge Sleet, Judge Robinson, Judge Stark and Judge Andrews) and two United States Magistrate Judges (Judge Thynge and Judge Burke). 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in SRI International, Inc. v. Internet Security Systems, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04-1199-SLR (D.Del., October 31, 2011), the Court granted in part plaintiff SRI International’s motion to preclude improper damages testimony by defendant Symantec Corporation’s expert during the damages trial. Id. at 9. The Court also granted in part defendant Symantec Corporation’s motion to limit the testimony of plaintiff SRI International’s damages expert during the damages trial. Id. at 9-10.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Order, dated September 22, 2011, and Opinion later entered explaining the Court’s reasoning by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, in Ateliers De La Haute-Garonne, et al. v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-598-LPS (D.Del., September 26, 2011, unsealed October 4, 2011), the Court granted the motion of defendants Broetje Automation-USA, Inc. and Bröetje-Automation GMBH (collectively, “Broetje”) for partial summary judgment of invalidity for failure to disclose the best mode as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1.

A copy of the Court's Opinion is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Ateliers De La Haute-Garonne, et al. v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-598-LPS (D.Del., October 13, 2011), the Court denied the motion of defendants Broetje Automation-USA, Inc. and Bröetje-Automation GMBH to dismiss plaintiffs’ first claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In their motion, defendants asserted that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over U.S. Patent No, 5,011,339 (“the ‘339 patent”) because the Applicants’ check to cover the issue fee bounced and, thus, the patent should be regarded as abandoned under 35 U.S.C. § 151 for failure to timely pay the required issue fee. Id. at 2. However, after considering the parties’ respective arguments and the evidence presented in the parties’ briefing and oral arguments, the Court concluded that plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that the issue fee was paid. Id. Thus, the ‘339 patent was not abandoned and the motion was denied.  Id. at 5.

A copy of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Christopher J. Burke in Kone Corporation v. Thyssenkrupp USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11-465-LPS-CJB (D.Del., September 26, 2011), the Court granted Plaintiff Kone Corporation’s motion for leave to take expedited discovery in connection with its pending motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court did modify and limit the scope of the expedited discovery granted. Id. at 16.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Softview LLC v. Apple, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC, Civil Action No. 10-389-LPS (D.Del., September 30, 2011), the Court granted plaintiff Softview’s motion to strike the original and proposed amended inequitable conduct defenses of defendants Apple and AT&T Mobility because both the original and proposed amended pleadings containing the inequitable conduct defense failed to adequately allege scienter. The Court, citing to the Federal Circuit's Opinion in Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) noted that an inequitable conduct pleading “must allege facts ‘giv[ing] rise to a reasonable inference of scienter, including both (1) knowledge of the withheld material information or of the falsity of the material misrepresentation, and (2) specific intent to deceive the PTO’).” Id. at 2.

Upon evaluation of defendants’ pleadings, the Court concluded that defendants’ theory of inequitable conduct is based on a “mere disagreement with Softview’s prosecution counsel on whether certain amendments impermissibly added new matter” and such disagreement does not give rise to a reasonable inference that Softview’s counsel knew he was amending to add new matter and intended to deceive the PTO of this fact. Id. Accordingly, the Court found that neither the original or proposed amended pleading sufficiently set forth the required scienter element of  inequitable conduct for an invalidity defense. Id. at 3.

A complete copy of the Court’s Memorandum Order is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc., Civil Action No. 07-272-SLR (D.Del., September 15, 2011), the Court granted Defendant Palm Inc.’s (“Palm”) motion for summary judgment relating to its infringement counterclaims in part by finding no invalidity as to its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,803 (“the ‘803 patent”) and 7,096,049 (“the ‘049 patent”). The Court denied Palm’s motion for summary judgment of infringement of the ‘803 and ‘049 patents against Plaintiff Intermec Technologies Corp. (“Intermec”). Id. at 50. The Court also granted Intermec’s motion for summary judgment as to no infringement of claims 17, 18 and 22 of the ‘803 patent and claim 17 of the ‘049 patent. Id. at 51.

A complete copy of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link