By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Civil Action No. 16-812-RGA (D.Del. January 12, 2018), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing nine (9) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,044 (“the ‘044 patent”), 8,679,069 (“the ‘069 patent”), 8,992,486 (“the ‘486 patent”), 9,526,844 (“the ‘844 patent”), 9,533,105 (“the ‘105 patent”), 9,457,152 (“the ‘152 patent”), 9,592,348 (“the ‘348 patent”), 7,476,652 (“the ‘652 patent”), 7,713,930 (“the ‘930 patent”), and 9,604,008 (“the ‘008 patent”) . The patents-in-suit generally relate to a diabetes pharmaceutical, or to pen-type injectors used to administer the pharmaceutical. Id. at *1.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in GN Netcom, Inc. v. Plantronics, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1318-LPS (D.Del. January 3, 2018), the Court denied Plaintiff GN Netcom’s motion for a new trial. Following a six-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant Plantronics, Inc. Thereafter, GN Netcom moved for a new trial contending the Court erred and prejudiced GN Netcom’s substantial rights in two ways: (1) with regard to Plantronics’ spoliation of evidence, by providing the jury a permissive adverse instruction rather than a dispositive sanction, and “present[ing] a sanitized version of facts regarding Plantronics’ spoliation that vastly ignored how egregious its misconduct was and how detrimental the consequences were on GN’s case”; and (2) refusing to admit evidence of the government’s notice of disbarment to Plantronics based on the General Services Administration’s review of the Court’s opinion imposing sanctions on Plantronics for its spoliation of evidence. Id. at *3. Upon evaluation of the motion, the Court concluded that GN Netcom failed to show that either of those errors affected its substantial rights. Id. at *4.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Amgen Inc. v. Macleods Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Civil Action No. 17-817-GMS (D.Del. December 19, 2017) (consolidated), the Court denied the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of defendants Macleods Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, “Macleods”).

Plaintiff Amgen filed the patent infringement action against Macleods s for infringement of one or more claims of Amgen’s U.S. Patent No. 9,375,405 (“the ‘405 patent”) after Macleods filed its Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to manufacture, use and/or sell of a generic version of Amgen’s Sensipar® product prior to the expiration of the ‘405 patent. In its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Macleods claimed that its ANDA products do not contain any of the listed excipients required by the ‘405 patent; thus, Amgen could only assert a claim under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at *2. Macleods also asserted that any claim by Amgen under the doctrine of equivalents was barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. Id.

In response, among other things, Amgen argued that Macleods motion should be converted into a motion for summary judgment because it required resolving factual issues and, if converted, should be denied because there are material facts in dispute. Id. at *3. The Court agreed that the motion should have been brought as a motion for summary judgment given the presence of material factual disputes, but decided not to convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment. Id. Instead, the Court found that there are material disputes of facts between the parties concerning the prosecution history of the ‘405 patent and denied Macleods’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Id. at *3-5.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 04-1371-LPS (D.Del., December 8, 2017), the Court dismissed without prejudice U.S. Patent No. 6,229,366 (“the ‘366 patent”) from the action, which was filed more than a dozen years ago, given that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allowed amended claims during Fairchild’s ex parte reexamination, issued a reexamination certificate and the reexamination amendments effected a substantive change in claim scope. Thus, any cause of action predicated on the original claims of the ‘366 patent was extinguished when the reexamination certificate issued. Id. at *5.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Javelin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Mylan Laboratories Limited et al., Civil Action No. 16-224-LPS (D.Del., December 1, 2017), the Court denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to the Northern District of West Virginia of Defendant Mylan Laboratories Limited, Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc. (collectively, the “Mylan Defendants”). In doing so, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for venue-related discovery to proceed contemporaneously with the remainder of the case as it proceeds on the merits and ruled that the Mylan Defendants could renew the motion after a period of venue-related discovery. Id. at *1 and 12. The Court also held that Mylan’s venue challenge was not untimely and Mylan did not waive its challenge to venue by failing to press it until after the U.S. Supreme Court decided TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) because the venue objection was not available until after that decision was rendered. Id. at *2.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-129-LPS-SRF (D.Del. November 9, 2017), the Court overruled the objections of plaintiff and defendant and adopted the recommended constructions of two disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,295 (“the ‘295 patent”) and 8,921,337 (“the ‘337 patent”).

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and Research v. Donghee America, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-187-LPS (D.Del. November 6, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing twelve (12) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,814,921 (“the ‘921 patent”), 6,866,812 (“the ‘812 patent”), 7,166,253 (“the ‘253 patent”), 8,163,228 (“the ‘228 patent”), 9,079,490 (“the ‘490 patent”), 9,399,326 (“the ‘326 patent”), and 9,399,327 (“the ‘327 patent”) . The asserted patents generally relate to methods for manufacturing automotive fuel tanks. Specifically, they describe and claim processes known in the industry as “twin-sheet blow molding” or “TSBM.” Id. at *1.

A copy of the Markman Opinion is attached

By Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in IYM Technologies LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-649-GMS (D.Del. October 27, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing four (4) disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 7,448,012 (“the ‘012 patent”). The ‘012 patent relates to methods and system for improving integrated circuit layout.

A copy of the Markman Order is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., Civil Action No. 14-1203-LP (D.Del. October 16, 2017), the Court denied Defendants motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 35 U.S.C. § 285 provides that, in “exceptional” patent cases, a Court may award “reasonable attorney fees” to the “prevailing party.” “An exceptional case under § 285 is ‘simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chem. Co., 856 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Healthy & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2014)).

In the instant action, following claim construction, the Court allowed Defendants to file a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Reckitt Benckiser LLC at *1. After full briefing and a hearing, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement finding that “no reasonable factfinder could find that [Defendants’] proposed ANDA product contains two distinct formulations, as required by the asserted claims.” Id. Defendants thereafter sought attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 contending the case was “exceptional.” Id. at *2.

In considering the motion for attorneys’ fees, the Court noted as follows:

In one way, this case stands out from others: it is an ANDA case that was resolved on summary judgment, a rare occurrence in this Court, which often does not allow summary judgment motions to be filed in an ANDA case. But this fact alone does not make this case per se “exceptional.” That the nature of the narrow dispute presented by the parties turned out to be amenable to summary judgment does not inevitably correlate to an exceptionally weak substantive position or an unreasonable manner of litigation.  Id. at *3. 

Ultimately, after concluding the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the factors weighing against finding the case exceptional outweighed those in favor. Id. at *7. Accordingly, the Court exercised its discretion to deny the request for attorneys’ fees. Id. at *8.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.