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

By Memorandum Opinion entered in Depuy Synthes Products, LLC v.Globus Medical, Inc., C.A. No. 11-652-LPS (D.Del., May 7, 2013), The Honorable Leonard P. Stark construed thirty-six (36) disputed terms found in U.S. Patent Nos.7,846,207, 7,862,616, and 7,875,076 (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”).

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-428-SLR (D.Del., April 25, 2013), the Court, as a practical matter, denied plaintiff Golden Bridge Technology, Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order of April 9, 2013 granting summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendant Apple. The Court noted that, although it previously granted the motion for reconsideration, it did explain at the time that it was only granting to review the merits of the motion and not to grant the relief sought. The Court apologized for any confusion this may have caused. Id. at *1, fn1. The Court ultimately concluded that, despite plaintiff’s supplemental submissions and citations to the record, there is no expert testimony or evidence of record that raises a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment under the Court’s claim construction. Id. at 6.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet in Devicor Medical Products, Inc. v. Biopsy Sciences, LLC, Civil Action No. 10-1060-GMS (D.Del., April 15, 2013), the Court denied the amended motion to transfer venue of Defendant Biopsy Sciences, LLC. After analyzing whether the action could have been brought originally in the Middle District of Florida and the Jumara factors, the Court was unable to find that Biopsy had met its burden of showing that the balance of factors tipped strongly in favor of transfer. Id. at 11. Thus, the motion to transfer was denied.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-428-SLR (D.Del., April 9, 2013), the Court granted the motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) as to the asserted claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,267 C1 (“the ‘267 patent”), as reexamined, and 7,359,427 (“the ‘427 patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”). In granting Apple’s motion, the Court concluded that “the accused devices do not directly infringe any of the asserted claims because they do not practice the limitation of ‘spreading an access preamble’ or a ‘spread access preamble,’ which is recited in each asserted claim. As there can be no indirect infringement without direct infringement, the accused devices or their methods of operation also do not indirectly infringe any of the asserted claims.” See id. at 17.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-157-RGA (D.Del., March 7, 2013), the Court granted in part the Daubert motion of defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. to exclude the proposed testimony of plaintiff’s expert on direct infringement and secondary considerations. Specifically, the Court excluded plaintiff expert’s conclusions about whether and how particular customers actually used the accused products and five of six of his opinions about secondary considerations of non-obviousness finding such conclusions and opinions not reliable because they were not the product of the expert’s scientific or call center expertise or his direct knowledge. Id. at 3-7.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Report and Recommendation in Imagevision.net, Inc. v. Internet Payment Exchange, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-054-GMS-MPT (D.Del., February 25, 2013), The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge has recommended denying the motion of defendant Internet Payment Exchange to stay pending the inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,567,925 (“the ‘925 patent”) by the United States Patent and Trade Office (“PTO”). After analyzing the required factors, Judge Thynge concluded that (1) the relative status of the litigation and the reexamination proceedings do not weigh in favor of a stay, (2) the possible simplification of the issues for trial weighs in favor of a stay given that the PTO has preliminary rejected all claims of the ‘925 patent under the heightened reexamination standard of the America Invent’s Act (“AIA”), and (3) the balancing of the undue prejudice to plaintiff if a stay were granted against the hardship or inequity to defendant if a stay were denied weigh in favor of a stay. Id. at 5-16.

A copy of the Report and Recommendation is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-610-RGA (D.Del., February 21, 2013), the Court granted the Daubert motion of defendant Intel Corporation seeking to exclude the proposed testimony of the expert witness on damages for plaintiff AVM Technologies, LLC. The Court found that such proposed testimony, which was based on the premise that "a reasonable royalty can be established by one litigation settlement agreement involving a different patent", is not reliable. Id. at 1. The Court also excluded most of plaintiff’s proposed inventor testimony concerning damages concluding that it was untimely disclosed and unreliable expert testimony. Id. at 3.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Cradle IP, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-1254-SLR (D.Del., February 13, 2013), the Court denied the motion to transfer venue filed by defendant Texas Instruments, Inc. After analyzing the Jumara factors, the Court found that Texas Instruments had not met its burden of persuading the court by a preponderance of the evidence that the Jumara factors warranted transfer of the patent infringement action to the Northern District of Texas. Id. at 9.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Order entered by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet in Woodbolt Distribution, LLC v. Natural Alternatives International, Inc., Civil Action No,. 11-1266-GMS (D.Del., January 23, 2013), the Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff which sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,067,381.  Of particular note was the fact that the same day that plaintiff initiated the declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware, defendant later filed a patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  Id. at 1.  Through its motion, defendant sought to dismiss the declaratory judgment filed in the District of Delaware and have the case transferred to the Southern District of Texas.  After analyzing the issues, the Court concluded that, under the circumstances, discretionary dismissal was appropriate in this instance and the 'first-filed rule" did not preclude dismissal.  Id. at 2-9.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Order entered in IPVenture Inc. v. Lenovo Group, Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 11-588-RGA (D.Del., January 8, 2013), the Honorable Richard G. Andrews granted in substantial part the motions of defendant Dell and other defendants seeking the dismissal of the claims of indirect infringement and willfulness asserted in the Second Amended Complaint of plaintiff IPVenture Inc. (“IPVenture”).

A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered in Enova Technology Corporation v. Initio Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 10-04-LPS (D.Del., December 28, 2012), the Honorable Leonard P. Stark construed seven disputed terms found in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,136,995 and 7,900,057 (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”).

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 10-1067-LPS (D.Del., December 12, 2012), the Court issued its claim construction opinion construing twenty (20) disputed terms found in U.S. Patent Numbers 6,460,050 (“the ‘050 patent”), 6,073,142 (“the ‘142 patent”), 5,987,610 (“the’610 patent”), and 7,506,155 (“the ’155 patent”).

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et el. v. Lupin Limited, et al., Civil Action No. 11-271-SLR (Consol.) (D.Del., December 7, 2012), the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants Lupin’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Smart Audio Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-134-GMS (D.Del., November 16, 2012), the Court denied Apple’s motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California. In denying the motion to transfer, the Court explained and examined the differences in the two approaches to analyzing the Jumara factors that have developed in the District of Delaware and referred to those approaches as (1) the “Affymetrix approach” and (2) the “modern approach.” Id. at 3-10. Ultimately, the Court found that the two approaches are quite similar and may not result in any practical difference in the outcome, although it did recognize that there appears to be some double-counting of plaintiff’s forum choice under the modern approach. Id. at 10-11. After analyzing the Jumara factors employing the language of the modern approach, the Court concluded that Apple failed to show that the balance of the factors weighed strongly in favor of transfer. Id. at 21.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link