By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Alarm.com, Inc. et al. v. Securenet Technologies LLC, Civil Action No. 15-807-RGA (D.Del. January 8, 2019), the Court granted-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Brett Reed.

With respect to Mr. Reed’s lost profits opinion, Defendant argued that the Court should exclude the entirety of Mr. Reed’s lost profits opinion because (1) there was a defect in his analysis of the manufacturing and marketing prong of Panduit; or (2) it contains an opinion as to Plaintiff Alarm.com’s entitlement to its lost profits prior to the date from which Plaintiff Alarm.com is legally entitled to claim lost profits. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs responded that Mr. Reed’s lost profits opinion should not be excluded because (1) the challenge to the Panduit analysis done by Mr. Reed goes to the weight of the evidence; and (2) Mr. Reed’s opinion merely addresses alternative lost profits scenarios without purporting to determine the date from which Plaintiff Alarm.com is legally entitled to claim lost profits. Id.

After considering the arguments, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that any defect in Mr. Reed’s Panduit analysis goes to the weight and credibility of his opinion instead of its admissibility and, thus, those opinions were not excluded. Id. The Court agreed with Defendants that, to the extent Mr. Reed’s lost profits opinion provides opinions that are inconsistent with the starting date of March 8, 2017 for lost profits recovery, those opinions were excluded. Id. at *4.

The Court goes on in the opinion to exclude other opinions of Mr. Reed as to the failure of others, copying, and praise by others and refuses to exclude his opinion on commercial success. Id. at *4-10.

Copies of the Memorandum and Opinion are attached.

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Agrofresh Inc. v. Mirtech, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-662-MN-SRF (D.Del. January 2, 2019), the Court overruled-in-part and sustained-in-part Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Sherry Fallon’s Claim Construction Report and Recommendation (D.I. 247). The Court ultimately entered its Markman ruling construing seven (7) disputed claims in the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,017,849, 6,313,068 and 9,394,216.

Copies of the Memorandum Opinion and Order are attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in TC Technology LLC v. Sprint Corp. et al., Civil Action 16-153-RGA (D.Del. December 13, 2018), the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part defendants’ motion to compel production of non-privileged documents after finding, among other things, that Plaintiff and its joint owners had a shared legal interest in acquiring and enforcing the patent at-issue in the action and that Plaintiff met its burden of establishing the common interest privilege with respect to the disputed communications with its joint owners. Id. at *1-11. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to produce certain documents related to non-legal communications for in camera review. Id. at *11.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Nox Medical EHF v. Natus Neuorology Inc., Civil Action No. 15-709-RGA (D.Del. December 7, 2018), the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration upon acknowledging that it did not appreciate the differences between U.S. Patent No. 9,059,532 (“the ‘532 Patent”) and its European counterpart when it initially denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Enhanced Damages after the jury’s finding of willful infringement by Defendant. However, after reconsideration and changing its view on the second Read factor, the Court still did not find that Defendant’s behavior was “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrong, flagrant, or-indeed-characteristic of a pirate.” Id. at *4. Thus, the Court did not believe that enhanced damages were appropriate and again denied Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Motion for Enhanced Damages. Id. at *4-8.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-444-RGA (D.Del. November 26, 2018) (consolidated), the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. §101 after concluding that the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,569,755 (“the ‘755 Patent”), are directed to patent ineligible subject matter and do not contain an inventive concept.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Invensas Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Civil Action No. 17-1363-MN (D.Del. November 16, 2018), the Court entered its Markman ruling construing three (3) terms in dispute in U.S. Patent Numbers 6,232,231 (“the ‘231 Patent”) and 6,849,946 (“the ‘946 Patent”).

Ultimately, the Court agreed with Plaintiff Invensas’s proposed construction for all three (3) terms in dispute finding (1) the terms “substantially planar” and “substantially co-planar” are not indefinite and that, based on the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would understand the term “substantially planar” means “substantially flat” and the term “substantially co-planar” means “substantially at the same elevation”; (2) the specification, when read in its entirety, discloses that “dummy connectors” may be connected to a power supply or ground, but does not require that they be connected to a source that can supply a power or ground voltage as Samsung’s proposed construction would require; and (3) the term “plurality of laterally spaced dummy trenches” means “two or more dummy trenches arranged with spaces between their sides.” Id. at *5-9.

Copies of the Memorandum Opinion and Order are attached.

This is the first opinion that I have reviewed that was issued by Judge Noreika. The opinion is clear, concise, well-reasoned and easy to follow. Not an easy task to accomplish in the patent area. It appears that Judge Noreika is off to an excellent start on the bench.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Dish Network, LLC, Civil Action No. 13-02066-RGA (D.Del. November 7, 2018) (consolidated), the Court denied the motions of Defendants DISH Network, LLC and Sirius XM Radio Inc. requesting the Court to declare the case exceptional and award reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. In denying the motions, the Court explained that the moving defendants are not prevailing parties because the previous judgments of non-infringement in the cases were vacated and, thus, the Court has not awarded “actual relief on the merits.” Id. at *2.

The Court also denied Defendants’ motions seeking an award of fees from Plaintiff’s former attorneys pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1927. Id. at *3. Defendants identified three issues with Plaintiff’s counsel’s representation of Plaintiff that they believed entitled Defendants to an award of attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1927. Id. The Court disagreed and found that the conduct identified by Defendants was not sufficient to support an award of fees pursuant to Section 1927 under the Third Circuit standard. Id. at *3-4.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-152-RGA (D.Del. November 2, 2018), the Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the Supplemental Expert Report and Opinion of Plaintiffs’ damages expert, James E. Malackowski, and preclude Plaintiffs from presenting lost profits at trial.

By way of background, the Court entered a prior Daubert order which excluded Mr. Malackowski’s lost profits opinion regarding a two-supplier market and his reasonable royalty opinion to the extent that he failed to account for apportionment. Id. at *1. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiffs’ request to supplement Mr. Malackowski’s report and Plaintiffs subsequently conceded that they would not present a claim for lost profits at trial. Id. Thus, the only issue before the Court on Defendant’s motion to exclude the Supplemental Expert Report is whether it filled the gap in Mr. Malackowski’s initial reasonable royalty opinion with respect to apportionment. Id.

Defendant’s main argument was that Mr. Malackowski’s apportionment methodology remained flawed because he relied on qualitative, rather than quantitative, analyses. Id. However, the Court noted that Defendant’s theory conflicts with the general understanding that “any reasonable royalty analyses necessarily involves an element of approximation and uncertainty.” Id. After considering the parties’ briefing and oral argument, the Court concluded that “Mr. Malackowski’s supplemental report fills the gaps in his initial report at least to the extent necessary to make his reasonable royalty opinion admissible.” Id. at *4. The Court also rejected the remaining arguments made by Plaintiffs to exclude the supplemental report and testimony with respect to the reasonable royalty and apportionment.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 12-540-LPS (D.Del. October 25, 2018), the Court denied Power Integration’s Motion to Preclude Evidence Under Daubert. In short, the Court concluded that (1) the challenged expert, Dr. Hanfield, is sufficiently qualified to provide reliable and helpful testimony on the topics that he has been offered; (2) Dr. Hanfield is highly experienced in supply chain management is a preeminent figure in the field and has coauthored textbooks; (3) there is a reasonable factual basis to find that the relevant market is within Dr. Hanfield’s area of expertise and he need not have the very specific and particularized additional experience that defendant claims is required; (4)a reasonable jury could find that Dr. Hanfield’s opinion is supported by the evidence; and (5) defendant’s concerns go to the weight the  jury may choose to attribute to Dr. Hanfield’s opinions and not their admissibility. Id. at *1-2.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.