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

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Technology Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-690-SLR (D.Del., April 25, 2012), the Court denied the motion of defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Technology Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff”) for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Amazon asserted in support of its motion that there in no possible construction for “book” that would cover a Kindle and, thus, claim construction was not necessary and Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim of infringement. Id. at 2-3. In denying the motion, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint did plead adequate notice of direct infringement required by Form 18 and it would be premature to dismiss the complaint prior to claim construction. Id. at 4. The Court indicated that it was not prepared to engage in claim construction, construing the terms “book” and “printed information” of United States Patent No. 5,517,407 (“the ‘407 patent”), at this early stage of the proceedings and without discovery or motion practice. Id.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

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

On April 25, 2012, the Honorable Sherry R. Fallon was sworn in as a United States Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Prior to being appointed to the bench, Judge Fallon practiced law in Delaware with the law firm of Tybout, Redfearn & Pell for over twenty-five years in the areas of insurance defense, insurance coverage and bad faith litigation, toxic torts, product liability, retailers' premises liability, construction litigation, creditors' claims in commercial bankruptcies and employment litigation. Judge Fallon earned her juris doctorate degree from the Delaware Law School of Widener University in 1986 and her bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1983. 

With the addition of Judge Fallon, the District of Delaware now has a total of seven judges - four U.S. District Judges (Chief Judge Sleet, Judge Robinson, Judge Stark and Judge Andrews) and  three U.S. Magistrate Judges (Judge Thynge, Judge Burke, and Judge Fallon).

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

The Delaware Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, in conjunction with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, is pleased to announce another exciting new initiative. On the evenings of Thursday, May 17 and Thursday, May 31, 2012, from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m., the District Court and FBA will sponsor a two-night seminar program entitled “The Federal Trial Practice Seminar Presents: An Introduction to Federal Practice in the District of Delaware.” The sessions will take place in Courtroom 2B at the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building.

 Attorneys who have been practicing in the District for three years or less are eligible to participate in this seminar. One of the two seminar sessions will relate to an attorney’s interaction with opposing counsel and participation in the litigation process, while the other session will focus on an attorney’s interaction with the Court. Each session will include a presentation from a speaker and a panel discussion. The speakers and panel members will be current and/or former judges of the District Court.

 Participation is limited to FBA members. Current FBA members may register for the seminar by contacting Steve Brauerman via e-mail at sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com, by no later than May 14, 2012. Those interested in participating in the seminar who are not currently FBA members may fill out and submit the attached application form in order to become a member.

Alternatively, they may contact Mr. Brauerman at the e-mail address listed above to obtain additional information about FBA membership.

 Space for the seminar is limited and applicants will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. Applicants should be available to attend both sessions. Admission to the seminar is free and the FBA expects to apply for Continuing Legal Education credit in Delaware for both sessions.

 The "Introduction to Federal Practice" seminar will be organized by the same administrative team that has organized our successful "Federal Trial Practice Seminar" (or "FTPS") in 2010 and 2011. The FTPS, an eight-week trial skills seminar program offered to attorneys in their first ten years of practice, will be next offered again in Spring 2013.

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

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable May Pat Thynge in Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-491-MPT (D.Del., April 11, 2012), the Court granted in part and denied in part the bill of costs of defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) after adjudication in its favor on the patent infringement claims filed against it by plaintiff Cordance Corporation (“Cordance”). Significantly, although the Court granted Amazon’s request for printing and copying costs in the amount of $1,378.78, filing fees in the amount of $1,498.99, deposition expenses in the amount of $1,152.80 and witness fees in the amount of $27,575.37, the Court completely denied Amazon’s request for exemplification costs in the amount of $51,323.62 and significantly limited the ediscovery costs granted to Amazon to $2,721.52 out of the $447,694.63 that Amazon claimed as ediscovery costs. Id. at 20-21.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

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

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Round Rock Research LLC v. Dole Food Company Inc., Civil Action No. 11-1239-RGA (D.Del., April 6, 2012), Round Rock Research LLC v. Gap Inc., Civil Action No. 11-1241-RGA (D.Del., April 6, 2012), and Round Rock Research LLC v. Hanesbrands Inc., Civil Action No. 11-1242-RGA (D.Del., April 6, 2012), the Court granted defendants’ motions to stay pending reexamination of the patents-in-suit. After analyzing the three pertinent factors the Court must consider in evaluating a motion to stay, the Court in its reasoning stated that “[c]onsidering all the circumstances, this seems pretty close to the classic case for granting a stay pending reexamination. The prejudice to the Plaintiff, including any tactical disadvantage is not great, and the other factors all clearly weigh in favor of granting the stay.” Id. at 4.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

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

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Shire LLC, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-329-RGA (D.Del., March 22, 2012), the Court issued its claim construction ruling on the disputed terms of three patents, U.S. Patent Numbers 5,854,290, 6,287,599 and 6,811,794, covering the drug Intuniv®, which is used to treat pediatric ADHD.

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 Boston Scientific Corporation, et al. v. Cordis Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-315-SLR (D.Del., March 13, 2012), the Court denied the motion of defendant Cordis Corporation requesting the Court to disturb the jury verdict and grant Cordis’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. In support of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, Cordis alleged that the jury’s verdict - which the parties agreed included an award to Boston Scientific of lost profits based on the normal profit margin per unit of sales of the product that allegedly declined in sales because of the infringing products - was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 7. Cordis also alleged that Boston Scientific had not proven that the introduction of the products found to infringe the patent at issue was the “but-for cause” of the decline of sales of the Cordis product. Id.

Upon evaluation of the evidence presented during trial, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s award of lost profits in the case and denied Cordis’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 25. A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

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

By Memorandum Order entered by the Honorable Mary Pat Thynge in Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc., et al. v. TPG Rewards, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-022-SLR/MPT (D.Del., March 6, 2012), the Court ordered Plaintiffs, Quantum Loyalty Systems, Inc. and Quantum Corporation of New York, Inc., to supplement their response to interrogatory number 7 of Defendant, TPG Rewards, Inc., which asked Plaintiffs to explain why each claim of the patent-in-suit does not cover defendants 1993 and 2002 products which are at issue as prior art. Judge Thynge found Plaintiffs’ original response, which merely parroted claim language and generally pointed to documents on the Court’s docket, was not an adequate response to the interrogatory. Id. at 5.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

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

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Richard G. Andrews in the consolidated cases of Robocast, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-235-RGA (D.Del., February 24, 2012) and Robocast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-1055-RGA (D.Del., February 24, 2012), the Court denied the motions to transfer of defendants Apple and Microsoft seeking to transfer the patent infringement actions asserted against them by plaintiff Robocast to the Northern District of California. Id. at 2 and 11. In analyzing the transfer motions under the Jumara factors, the Court found that factors (1) and (4) (plaintiff’s forum preference as manifested in the original choice and the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition) supported plaintiff’s position that the transfer motions should be denied. Id. at 3-4. Significantly, the Court also considered and distinguished the Federal Circuit’s holding in In Re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) from this action finding that there was a greater connection to Delaware in this action. Id. at 10.  The Court also noted an important difference in the law of the Fifth Circuit and the Third Circuit in how to conduct a transfer analysis. Id. Ultimately, the Court determined that Apple and Microsoft did not show that the balance of convenience tipped strongly enough in their favor to warrant transfer. Id. at 10-11.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

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

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Serverside Group Limited, et al. v. CPI Card Group – Minnesota Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 11-559-RGA (D.Del., February 17, 2012), the Court transferred the patent infringement claims asserted against the T8 Defendants to the Northern District of Iowa after finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the T8 Defendants. The Court found that there was no personal jurisdiction over the T8 Defendants in Delaware because no tortious act or injury occurred in Delaware. Id. at 7-8.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

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

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Magnetar Technologies Corp., et al. v. Six Flag Theme Parks Inc., et al., Civil Action 07-127-LPS-MPT (D.Del., February 1, 2012), the Court issued its Markman construction of the five claim terms and/or phrases as used in U.S. Patent Numbers 5,277,125 (“the ‘125 patent”) and 6,659,237 (”the ‘237 patent”) that were in dispute.

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 Ladatech, LLC v. Illumina, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-627-SLR (D.Del., January 24, 2012), the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to defendant Illumina’s cluster generation products (alone) and the use of third-party prep kits with those products, but denied defendants’ motion in all other respects. The Court also denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity and expiration, and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no anticipation by the Saiki and/or Liang articles. Id. at 46.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

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

By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Dey Pharma, L.P., et al., Civil Action 06-113-LPS (D.Del., January 18, 2012), the Court agreed with defendants that British patent, GB 1 298 494 (“the GB ‘494 patent”) adequately incorporates by reference the practical utility of the racemic compounds separately described in British patent, GB 1 200 886 (“the GB ‘886 patent”), such that the pertinent material from the two patents can be properly considered a “single reference” for purposes of defendants’ invalidity defense based on anticipation.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

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

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