Header graphic for print

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation

Intellectual Property and Antitrust Litigation in Delaware

Judge Andrews Grants Partial Summary Judgment After Finding Asserted Claim of Comcast’s Patent Is Not Patentable Subject Matter

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., Civil Action No. 12-205-RGA (D.Del., July 16, 2014), the Court granted defendant Sprint’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,873,694 (“the ‘694 patent”) are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, the Court concluded that Claim 21, the only asserted claim of the ‘694 patent, is drawn to an abstract idea and its two steps describe the simple concept of determining if a decision is required. Id. at 4-6. The Court recognized that a decision is a “basic tool of scientific and technological work” and, thus, is a patent ineligible abstract idea. Id. at 7. After analyzing the additional limitations imposed by Claim 21, the Court also concluded that “the idea of a decision has not been sufficiently limited by the claim to prevent the claim from ‘cover[ing] the full abstract idea itself.’” Id. at 7.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

 

Judge Stark Denies Google’s Motion to Stay Patent Litigation Pending Patent Appeal

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-318-LPS (D.Del., June 24, 2014), the Court denied defendant Google, Inc.’s (“Google”) motion to stay proceedings pending covered business method review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after weighing the pertinent factors and concluding that those factors disfavored granting the requested stay.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

 

Judge Stark Grants MACOM’s Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Laird from Supplying Ford with GPS Modules that Likely Infringe MACOM’s ‘349 Patent

Posted in District of Delaware, Intellectual Property, Patent Actions, Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in M/A- COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. v. Laird Technologies, Inc., C.A. 14-181-LPS (D.Del., June 13, 2014), the Court granted Plaintiff M/A-Com Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.’s (“MACOM”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin Defendant Laird Technologies, Inc. (“Laird”) from supplying Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) with GPS modules that MACOM contends infringe its patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,272,349 (“the ‘349 Patent”). In granting the preliminary injunction in this patent infringement action, the Court found that (1) MACOM is likely to succeed on the merits (meaning that MACOM demonstrated that it is likely to prove infringement of the ’349 patent and Laird did not raise a substantial question of patent validity); (2) MACOM met its burden to show that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of the equities tip in MACOM’s favor; and (4) the public interest favors granting the preliminary injunction. Id. at 2-16.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

 

Judge Stark Denies Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Claim Construction Order

Posted in District of Delaware, Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 12-993-LPS (D.Del., June 3, 2014), the Court denied defendant Actavis, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Markman Order concerning the construction of the term “levalbuterol” as “substantially optically pure levalbuterol.” Actavis argued that the Court made three errors in adopting its construction. The Court noted that reconsideration should be granted only sparingly, rejected Actavis’ arguments and concluded that defendant’s motion did not demonstrate any of the grounds on which the Court would grant reconsideration. Id. at 1-3.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

 

Judge Robinson Grants JP Morgan’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Patents-in-Suit

Posted in District of Delaware, Intellectual Property, Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Pi-Net International Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Civil Action No. 12-282 SLR (D.Del., May 14, 2014), the Court, among other things, granted defendant JP Morgan’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,987,500 (“the ‘500 patent”), 8,037,158 (“the ‘158 patent”), and 8,108,492 (“the ‘492 patent”), after finding several of the asserted claims invalid for indefiniteness.  For example, with respect to the ‘492 patent, the Court found the limitations “value-added network (‘VAN’) switch,” “switching,” “service network,” and “computer system executing the back-end transactional application for processing the transaction request in real-time” were indefinite.  Id. at 11.  Thus, the Court concluded that independent claims 1 and 10 of the ‘492 patent, which each contained those limitations, were invalid for indefiniteness.  Id.  The Court made similar findings with respect to the ‘500 patent and the ‘158 patent.  See id. at 12-24.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

Magistrate Judge Burke Issues Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction Ruling on Disputed Terms in Five Patents-in-Suit in Action Against Yahoo!

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Infringement

In Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., Civil Action No. 11-902-LPS-CJB (May 15, 2014), the Honorable Christopher J. Burke issued his Report and Recommendation on the construction of 16 dsiputed terms of five patents, U.S. Patent Numbers 5,689,641, 6,237,025, 6,351,762, 5,854,893, 7,185,054, and 5,896,500, all of which which relate to the field of distributed multimedia collaboration.

A complete copy of the Report and Recommendation is attached.

 

Judge Robinson Denies Defendant’s Motion to Stay Patent Infringement Action Pending Review of the Patents-in-Suit by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Actions, Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. Callidus Software, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-931-SLR (D.Del., May 8, 2014), the Court denied defendant Callidus Software, Inc.’s motion to stay pending post-grant review of the patents-in-suit pursuant to the “covered business method” (“CBM”) patent review process provided for under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), § 18(a), 37 C.F.R. 42.300(a) with respect to two of the three patents-in-suit. In considering the motion, the Court recognized the legislative history of the CBM post-grant review process, the fact that Congress “place[d] a very heavy thumb on the scale in favor of a stay being granted,” and that the AIA “provides an immediate appeal of a denial of a stay by a district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” Id. at 3-4. However, despite those things, the Court concluded that a complete stay, under the circumstances of the instant action, would not simplify the issues or reduce the burdens of litigation. Thus, the court denied the motion to stay as to the ‘024 and ‘304 patents and granted the stay as to the ‘326 patent.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

 

Judge Burke Denies Defendants’ Motion to Stay Without Prejudice

Posted in Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Christopher J. Burke in McRo, Inc. d/b/a Planet Blue v. Bethesda Softworks LLC, Civil Action No. 12-1509-LPS-CJB (D.Del., May 1, 2014) (consolidated), the Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay without prejudice to renew the motion after the United States Patent and Trademark Office decision on whether to grant Defendant Naughty Dog’s petition for inter partes reexamination of the patents-in-suit.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

Judge Robinson Denies Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Design Patent Infringement Action

Posted in Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-693-SLR (D.Del., April 10, 2014), the Court denied defendant API Industries, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings after concluding that the patented design and the accused design “are not plainly dissimilar” and refusing to pronounce, as a matter of law, that the overall visual differences between the accused design and patented design are greater than the differences between the patented design and the prior art. The Court noted that “the accused design and the patented design appear the same in general appearance and effect” but an issue of fact remains. Id. at 6.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

 

Judge Robinson Grants Amazon’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Concludes that Sanctions Are Warranted in Patent Infringement Action

Posted in Antitrust and Patent Misuse, Intellectual Property, Patent Infringement

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Technology Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-690-SLR (D.Del., March 31, 2014), the Court granted defendant Amazon’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,429,965 (“the ‘965 patent”). The Court also found that plaintiff’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 5,517,407 (“the ‘407 patent”) against defendant Amazon’s Kindle product warranted sanctions because the claims and specification made it clear that the invention refers only to printed materials and not an electronic book. Id. at 11-24. Accordingly, the Court found that plaintiff’s assertion of infringement of the ‘407 patent by the Kindle was not “objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” Id. at 24.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.