By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in North Atlantic Operating Co., Inc. et al. v. Dunhuang Group/d/b/a DHgate et al., Civil Action No. 18-154-LPS (D.Del. July 11, 2018), the Court granted in part Petitioners North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc. and National Tobacco Company, L.P.’s Motion to Compel Non-Party Dunhung Group d/b/a DHgate, DHlink, DHport, and DHpay to Comply with Plaintiffs’ Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Motion to Compel”) to the extent it requested the Court to transfer the Motion to Compel to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In so ordering, the Court found that “extraordinary circumstances exist in this case, such that transfer is warranted so as to not disrupt the issuing court’s management of the Underlying Action.” Id. at *3.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 17-389-RGA (D.Del. June 29, 2018), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing three (3) terms in dispute in the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,778,962 (“the ‘962 patent”) and 8,617,598 (“the ‘598 patent”).

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Siemens Industry, Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Tech. Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 16-284-LPS (D.Del. June 20, 2018), the Court denied Plaintiff Siemens Industry, Inc.’s motion asking the Court to reconsider its construction of the terms “vital” and “safety critical” provided in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 6, 2017. Defendants opposed the motion. Id. at *1.

Siemens argued that “reconsideration is required to correct certain factual and legal errors in the Court’s interpretation of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence of record that resulted in erroneous constructions.” Id. at *2. Among other things, Siemens argued that, when the Court’s constructions are substituted for “vital” and “safety critical” in the claims, the claims no longer make grammatical sense. Id. at *3.

“Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5, motions for reconsideration should be granted ‘sparingly.’” Id. at *1. The Court noted that motions for reconsideration may be granted only if the movant can show one of the following: (i) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (ii) new evidence is available that was not available when the court made its decision; and (iii) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. Id. at *2. The Court did not find any reason warranting reconsideration and, therefore, denied Siemen’s motion. Id. at *3-4.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in TQ Delta, LLC v. ZyXel Communications, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 13-02013-RGA (D.Del. June 12, 2018), the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Expedited Consideration of a Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin Plaintiff from pursuing an action in the High Court of Justice of London, England against ZyXel UK and ZyXel Communications A/S (incorporated in Denmark) for infringement of two European patents. One of the two patents in suit in the UK action is the counterpart to the claims in the Family 5 patents asserted in the instant action. Id. at *2.

In denying Defendants’ motion, the Court explained that the Third Circuit has adopted the restrictive approach as a test for determining whether an anti-suit injunction should be entered to restrain the advancement of a foreign parallel proceeding. Id. at *3. Under the restrictive approach, anti-suit injunctions against foreign proceedings are rarely granted. Id. District courts may appropriately enjoin “foreign parallel proceedings only to protect jurisdiction or an important public policy.” Id. The Third Circuit’s jurisprudence instructs that, although comity is a consideration in federal and state litigation, comity should weigh even more heavily in the court’s analysis of anti-suit injunction in the international context. Id. Domestic and foreign parallel proceedings may ordinarily proceed simultaneously “at least until one has reached the stage where its ruling becomes res judicata.” Id.

Applying the restrictive approach to the circumstances in the instant action, the Court found that the UK action will not usurp this Court’s jurisdiction or threaten an important public policy. Id. at *4-8. Thus, the UK action should proceed parallel to the instant action, and an injunction is not warranted. Id.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

Following a four-day bench trial before him in Shire Orphan Therapies LLC et al. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, Civil Action No. 15-1102-GMS (D.Del. June 5, 2018), and having considered the entire record in the case and the applicable law, The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet issued the Court’s Memorandum setting forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the action including that (1) the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,648,333 (“the ‘333 Patent”) are not invalid in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,597,807 (“the ‘7803 Patent”) under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting; and (2) the ‘333 Patent is not invalid due to prosecution laches because there was no unreasonable or unexplained delay in prosecuting the ‘333 patent.

A copy of the Memorandum setting forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in more detail is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in TQ Delta, LLC v. Zyxel Communications, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 13-02013-RGA (D.Del. May 8, 2018) (consolidated), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing thirteen (13) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,796,705 (“the ‘705 patent”), 8,335,956 (“the ‘956 patent”), 8,407,546 (“the ‘546 patent”), 8,468,411 (“the ‘411 patent”), 8,595,577 (“the ‘577 patent”), and 8,645,784 (“the ‘784 patent”).

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Genentech, Inc. et al. v. Amgen Inc., Civil Action No. 17-1407-GMS (D.Del. April 17, 2018), the Court granted defendant Amgen’s motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiffs Genetech and City of Hope (collectively “Genetech”) requesting a declaratory judgment that Amgen cannot market Mvasi™ before December 18, 2018.

Mvasi™ is a biosimilar version of Genetech’s Avastin®. During the “patent dance” prescribed by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), 42 U.S.C. § 262(l), Amgen made a statement pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §262(l)(3)(B) that it did not intend to begin commercial marketing of Mvasi™ before December 18, 2018. Id. at *1. Amgen later provided notice that it would not start commercial marketing of Mvasi™ before April 4, 2018 – eight months earlier than the date it previously provided. Genetech filed its claim requesting a declaratory judgment seeking to enforce Amgen’s earlier representation that it would not commence the commercial marketing of Mvasi™ before December 18, 2018. Id. at *3. Amgen moved to dismiss Genetech’s commercial marketing claim asserting that it failed to state a claim and that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). Id. at *1.

Upon review, the Court determined there was not yet an “actual controversy” to warrant the Court exercising jurisdiction over Genentech’s commercial marketing claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Id. at *4. In other words, because it was already beyond April 4, 2018 and, other than the notice of commercial marketing, there was no indication that Mvasi™ had actually launched or would be launched before December 18, 2018, the commercial marketing claim was not of “sufficient immediacy” to warrant the issuance of a novel declaratory judgment. Id. The Court noted that, if the claim ripens into an “actual controversy” – meaning Amgen launches Mvasi™ before December 18, 2018 – there would be an opportunity for Genentech to seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction at that time. Id.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

By Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Alarm.com, Inc., et al. v. Securenet Technologies, Civil Action No. 15-807-GMS (D.Del. April 6, 2018), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing three (3) disputed terms and certain variants of one term in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,885,635 (“the ‘635 patent”), 8,073,931 (“the ‘931 patent”), 8,473,619 (“the ‘619 patent”), and 8,478,844 (“the ‘844 patent”).

A copy of the Markman Order is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-1266-RGA (D.Del. March 31, 2018) (consolidated), the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,742,021 (“the ‘021 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,523,061 (“the ‘061 patent”), and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,718 (“the ‘718 patent”) after finding that those claims are each drawn to an abstract idea and that none of them provide an inventive concept. In reaching its findings, the Court noted, among other things, that the subject claims are “aspirational in nature and devoid of any implementation details or technical description” that would permit the Court to conclude that any of the subject claims as a whole are directed to something other than the abstract idea of retrieving electronic data in response to a spoken request, and transmitting the retrieved data to a user. Id. at *18.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in 3G Licensing, S.A. et al. v. Blackberry Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 17-82-LPS-CJB (D.Del. March 22, 2018) (consolidated), the Court granted Defendants’ motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings that all the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662 (“the ‘662 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ‘662 patent is entitled “Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data with Transmission Error Checking” and “[t]he invention relates to a method for the transmission of data with transmission effort checking.” Id. at *1. In short, upon conducting the two step Alice/Mayo analysis, the Court found that the claims of the ‘662 patent were directed to an abstract idea and did not contain an inventive concept. Id. at *11-18. Thus, the Court held that the ‘662 patent is not patent eligible and granted motion for judgment on the pleadings on invalidity in favor of Defendants. Id. at *18.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.