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.
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.
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.
By Memorandum Opinion entered in Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-733-LPS (D.Del., August 22, 2012), the Honorable Leonard P. Stark construed twelve disputed terms found in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,028,022 and 6,992,218 (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”).
A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
By Memorandum Opinion entered in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., et al., the Honorable Leonard P. Stark construed fifteen disputed terms found in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,710,929, 5,758,175, 5,892,959, 6,079,025, 5,630,163, 5,613,130 and 5,961,617 (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”).
A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
By Memorandum Opinion entered in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10-982-LPS (D.Del., August 7, 2012), the Honorable Leonard P. Stark construed sixteen disputed terms found in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,710,929, 6,079,025, 5,758175, 5,892,959, 5,630,163 and 5,822,610 (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”).
A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Cooper Notification, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-685-LPS (D.Del., July 16, 2012), the Court denied the requests of Plaintiff Cooper Notification, Inc. for reconsideration or reargument, leave to file supplemental infringement reports, and clarification of the Court's claim construction in connection with the Court's prior Opinion and Order (D.I. 568 and 569) granting defendants' motions for summary judgment of non-infringement. The Court concluded that Plaintiff did not meet the standard for reconsideration or any of the other relief requested, entered judgment against Plaintiff Cooper Notification, Inc. and for Defendants, Twitter, Inc., Everbridge, Inc. and Federal Signal Corp., and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Id. at 4.
A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
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.
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.
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, the Court issued its Markman opinion in Wyeth, LLC v. Intervet, Inc., d/b/a Intervet/Schering Plough Animal Health, Civil Action No. 09-161-LPS (D.Del., March 22, 2011) construing the three disputed terms of the patents-in-suit in the infringement action that plaintiff Wyeth, LLC (“Wyeth”) filed against defendant Intervet, Inc. (“Intervet”). In its complaint, Wyeth alleged that Intervet was infringing seven of its patents related to porcine circovirus vaccines: U.S. Patent No. 6,703,023 (the “’023 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,223,407 (the ‘”407 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,223,594 (the “’594 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,407,803 (the “’803 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,604,808 (the “’808 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,772,883 (the “’883 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,740,886 (the “’886 patent) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit are directed to vaccines, vaccine components, and recombinant DNA techniques for making vaccines that protect livestock pigs from a viral disease known as Piglet Wasting Disease (“PWD”), also known as Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (“PMWS”) and Fatal Piglet Wasting (“FPW”). Id. at 2. Intervet filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments that Intervet’s accused products do not infringe the asserted claims and that the asserted claims are invalid. Id. at 1.
Wyeth asserted ninety claims against Intervet from the patents-in-suit. Id. at 2. The parties presented three disputed terms to the Court for claim construction. Id. at 3. The three disputed terms were “PCVB,” “Claim 1 of the ‘023 Patent,” and “amplifying said nucleic acid.” Id. Briefing on claim construction was completed on October 29, 2010, and the Court held a Markman hearing on November 9, 2010. Id. at 1-2.
After considering and analyzing the parties’ proposed constructions of the disputed term “PCVB”, the Court agreed with Intervet and construed the term “PCVB” in the patents-in-suit to mean “a porcine circovirus having the genomic sequence of SEQ ID No. 15 or SEQ ID No. 19.” Id. at 12 and 18. The Court did not given any construction to “Claim 1 of the ‘023 Patent,” and “Amplifying said nucleic acid” was construed to mean “increasing the amount of said nucleic acid.” Id. at 24.
A complete copy of the Court’s Markman Opinion is attached.
On February 28, 2011, The Honorable Leonard P. Stark issued the Court's Markman Opinion in Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 09-943-LPS (D.Del.), construing the disputed terms of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,969,156 and its Reexamination Certificate (collectively, "the '156 patent"). The patent-in-suit relates to novel crystalline forms of atorvastatin.
Complete copies of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order setting forth its construction of the disputed terms are attached.
On February 23, 2011, The Honorable Leonard P. Stark issued the Court's Markman Opinion in Atleiers De La Haute-Garonne, et al. v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-598-LPS (D.Del.) construing the disputed terms of the two patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,011,339 (the "339 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 5,143,216 (the "216 patent"). Both patents relate to dispensing objects, such as rivets, through a tube.
Complete copies of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order setting forth its construction of the disputed terms are attached.
On July 26, 2010, through an Opinion and Order entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson, the District of Delaware ruled on ten motions in the two related patent infringement actions captioned, Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-72-SLR, and Cisco Systems v. Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft mbH, Civil Action No. 09-232-SLR. The patents in suit relate to voice over internet protocol telephony. The problem claimed to be solved by the invention is how to use internet telephony without interrupting the real-time transfer of data. Id. at 16.
In light of the breadth and length of the Opinion, which is fifty-seven (57) pages, this posting focuses only on the Court’s ruling with respect to the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. In that regard, Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft (“SSBG”) sought partial summary judgment that Cisco’s 1861, 881 SRST and 888 SRST router products infringe claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,954,453 (“the ‘453 patent”), claim 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,483,431 (“the ‘431 patent”) and claims 69 and 84 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,902 (“the ‘902 patent”). Cisco sought summary judgment that its router products did not infringe the patents under any of the fourteen infringing scenarios identified by SSBG’s expert in his infringement report. Id. at 13. In short, the Court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and denied SSBG’s motion for summary judgment of infringement. Id. at 30-31. A complete copy of the Opinion is attached.
Significantly, the Court, by and through Judge Robinson, had also issued its Claim Construction Opinion on the same date construing certain claim limitations relevant to the issue of infringement. A copy of the Claim Construction Opinion is attached.
After analyzing SSBG’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement and Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and relying upon its claim constructions, the Court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and denied SSBG’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement. Id. at 31. In so ruling, the Court found that all of SSBG’s relevant infringing scenarios, except “call transfer”, were premised on SSBG’s construction of the term “change over”, which the Court rejected in accepting Cisco’s construction of that term. Id. at 18-30. With respect to the “call transfer” scenario, the Court found could that SSBG had not identified a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 22-24. With respect to those asserted claims requiring “means responsive to a control signal for changing over,” the Court noted that its holding was bolstered in that there was no dispute that Cisco’s products do not contain the “control device” structure described in the specification of the patent. Further, the Court found that no reasonable jury could find that Cisco infringes the ‘431 patent for the additional reason that there was no indication in the record that Cisco directly infringes that patent. Id. at 30.
By Order dated June 24, 2010, Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet adopted the Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction entered by Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark on May 12, 2010 in The Research Foundation of State of New York, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, L.P., Civil Action No. 09-184-GMS-LPS. In doing so, the Court adopted the constructions of the five terms in dispute, "tetracylcline compound", "antibiotic tetracycline compound", "the tetracycline compound has substantially no anti-microbial activity", "minimum antibiotic serum concentration", and "chronic inflammatory condition", as used in the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,232,572, 7,211,267, 5,789,395 and 5,919,775 in accordance with Judge Stark's recommended constructions in his Report and Recommendation. The Court also adopted the constructions of the six terms that the parties agreed to among themselves as set forth in Judge Stark's Report and Recommendation. Copies of Judge Stark's Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction and Judge Sleet's Order adopting it are attached.
In Integrated Discrete Devices, LLC v. Diodes Incorporated, C.A. No. 08-888-GMS (D.Del., May 26, 2010), The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, Chief Judge, issued the Court's Markman Order construing seven disputed terms in a patent action. Of particular note in the Court's Order is the first footnote which notes that the Court adopted the defendant's proposed construction of the term "semiconductor substrate of a first conductivity type" to mean "bottom semiconductor material of a first conductivity type, upon which layers may be deposited or grown" . . . "as a sanction for the plaintiff's failure to follow its Markman procedures." Id. at 1, n.1.
A copy of the Court's Markman Order is attached.
On April 30, 2010, The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. issued the opinion setting forth the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the second phase of the patent infringement action captioned LG Display Co., Ltd. v. AU Optronics Corp., C.A. No. 06-726-JJF (D.Del.). In the second phase, the claims at issue were those asserted by LG Display Co., Ltd. ("LGD") alleging infringement of four patents against AU Optronics Corporation ("AUO") as well as AUO's invalidity defense. In its latest opinion, the Court defined the disputed terms in the asserted patents and concluded that LGD did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that AUO infringes the asserted patents. The Court also concluded that AUO did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted patents are invalid.
Readers may recall that, in February 2010, Judge Farnan issued the opinion setting forth the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the first phase of this patent infringement action which addressed AUO's patent infringement claims against LGD and LGD's invalidity defense. See Blog Posting of February 21, 2010. In the first phase opinion, the Court concluded that AUO did establish by a preponderance of the evidence that LGD infringed the patents asserted by AUO in this action, and LGD did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that such patents were invalid.
Thus, the Court ruled in favor of AUO in both phases of the action following the bench trial that took place in June 2009. A complete copy of the second phase opinion is attached.
In a Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. on February 16, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the patent infringement claims of AU Optronics Corporation (“AUO”) against LG Display Co., Ltd. (“LGD”) which were tried by the parties during phase one of the bench trial held before Judge Farnan in June 2009. The Opinion also sets forth the Court’s claim construction of the disputed terms in the asserted patents and its analysis concerning the infringement claims asserted by AUO against LG, and the invalidity defense asserted by LG.
Ultimately, the Court concludes that (1) AUO established by a preponderance of the evidence that LGD literally infringes the patents asserted by AUO in the action, and (2) LGD did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the patents asserted by AUO in the action are invalid. A complete copy of the Opinion is attached.
By Order dated October 20, 2009, in Grape Technology Group, Inc., et al. v. Jingle Networks, Inc. (PDF), Chief Judge Sleet noted that the Court will impose a limit of ten (10) disputed terms per patent for claim construction in this action and all future patent actions. Specifically, in the Order, Chief Judge Sleet stated as follows:
“The parties have submitted for construction 19 terms from U.S. Patent No. 7.023,969. Although disinclined to do so in the past, the court – regrettably – will impose a limit of 10 disputed terms per patent for claim construction in this and all future patent actions.”
Thus, parties in patent infringement actions in the District of Delaware should be strategic and careful to narrow the real claims in dispute that require claim construction. I've attached a copy of the Order (PDF) entered by Chief Judge Sleet.
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.