35 U.S.C. § 112

Subscribe to 35 U.S.C. § 112

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in University of Massachusetts et al. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-0868-CFC-SRF (D.Del. April 20, 2021), the…
Continue Reading Judge Connolly Grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness in Patent Infringement Action

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 18-1615-CFC (D.Del. June 24, 2019), the Court…
Continue Reading Judge Connolly Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness Declaring Patent-in-Suit Invalid

By Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-846-LPS (D.Del. February 16, 2018), the District…
Continue Reading Chief Judge Stark Grants Defendant’s Renewed JMOL Motion After Finding Patent-in-Suit Invalid for Lack of Enablement

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Enzo v. Gen-Probe Inc., Civil Action No. 12-104-LPS (consolidated) (D.Del., June 28, 2017), the Court granted the motion…
Continue Reading Chief Judge Stark Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of ‘180 Patent Based on Nonenablement

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-839-RGA (D.Del., November 30, 2016), the Court issued its claim…
Continue Reading Judge Andrews Construes Two Phrases in Dispute in Patent-in-Suit and Finds Dependent Claim Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Cox Communications Inc., et al. v. Sprint Communications L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 12-487-SLR (D.Del., May 15,…
Continue Reading Judge Robinson Grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity Finding Patent Claim Indefinite

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. FLO TV Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No. 10-812-RGA (D.Del., March 4,…
Continue Reading Judge Andrews Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Invalidity After Finding Eight Terms of Patent-in-Suit Indefinite for Failure to Disclose Algorithm

By Order, dated September 22, 2011, and Opinion later entered explaining the Court’s reasoning by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, in Ateliers De La Haute-Garonne, et al. v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-598-LPS (D.Del., September 26, 2011, unsealed October 4, 2011), the Court granted the motion of defendants Broetje Automation-USA, Inc. and Bröetje-Automation GMBH (collectively, “Broetje”) for partial summary judgment of invalidity for failure to disclose the best mode as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1.

A copy of the Court’s Opinion is attached.
 Continue Reading Judge Stark Grants Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Failure to Disclose Best Mode

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in the consolidated patent infringement action, Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. No 07-721-GMS and Aventis Pharma S.A., et al. v. Apotex, Inc., C.A. No. 08-496-GMS (D.Del., September 27, 2010), the Court concluded, among other things, that (1) claims 2 and 10 of the ‘561 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness; (2) all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid due to obviousness; and (3) the asserted claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Id. at 2. The Court made its ruling following a seven day bench trial and post-trial submissions by the parties.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 Continue Reading Chief Judge Sleet Finds Two Of The Asserted Claims Of Plaintiffs’ Patent-In-Suit Are Invalid Due To Indefiniteness