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 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 Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-453-RGA (D.Del. January 17, 2018) (consolidated), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing eight (8) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (“the ‘344 patent”), 6,714,966 (“the ‘966 patent”), 6,829,634 (“the ‘634 patent”), 6,910,069 (“the ‘069 patent”), 6,732,147 (“the ‘147 patent”), and 6,920,497 (“the ‘497 patent”).

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

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 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 Richard G. Andrews in Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Civil Action No. 16-140-RGA (D.Del. June 19, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing the remaining term in dispute in U.S. Patent No. 7,129,931 (“the ‘931 patent”) consistent with plaintiff’s proposed construction of the term. The ‘931 patent relates to a laptop computer with a dual-axis hinge for the monitor and a front-facing port. The remaining dispute in the claim construction was whether the term “port” in claim 1 includes a PC card slot or whether PC card slots were disclaimed during the prosecution of the patent. Id. at *6. After review of the prosecution history, the Court agreed with Plaintiff that PC card slots were clearly disclaimed. Id. at *7-10. Thus, the Court construed the term “port” as an “interface not including a PC card slot.” Id. at *10.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

 

By Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Avid Technology, Inc. v. Harmonic Inc., Civil Action No. 12-627-GMS (D.Del. May 2, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing three (3) disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,495,291 (“the ‘291 patent”). The ‘291 patent relates to methods and apparatus for a video decompression system for decompressing consecutive streams of compressed video data to provide continuous, uninterrupted decompressed video data output stream.

A copy of the Markman Order is attached.

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 constructions for the two phrases in dispute in claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 (“the ‘298 patent”) and found that claim 8 of the ‘298 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it is a dependent claim that contradicts a limitation of the claim from which it depended – claim 1.

In construing the phrase “an isolated . . . isoform” in claims 1 and 8 of the ‘298 patent, the Court adopted Hospira’s proposal that “an isolated . . . isoform” means only one isoform. Id. at *4-6. In doing so, the Court rejected Amgen’s proposal that the phrase “an isolated . . . isoform” allows for mixtures of at least one isoform. Id. The Court reasoned that Amgen’s proposed construction would render the word “isolated” superfluous and would equate the phrase “an isolated . . . isoform” with “an insoform ”, which would violate the principle that “claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

In construing the phrase “isolated . . . isoform” in claims 1 and 8 of the ‘298 patent, the Court adopted Amgen’s proposal that “isolated . . . isoform” as referred to in claim 1 means “a group of molecules that has a single isoelectric focusing point and a specific number of sialic acids per molecule, and appears as a single band on an isoelectric focusing gel (an example of which is shown in Figure 1 of the ‘298 patent).” Id. at *6-7.

In finding claim 8 (a dependent claim that depends on independent claim 1) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Court explained that claim 1 requires only one isoform. “Claim 8 contradicts claim 1’s limitation that the isoform is ‘isolated’ by requiring a mixture ‘consisting essentially of two or three’ isoforms. Claim 8 thus improperly narrows claim 1.” Id. at *8.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.

The general take away is that, where the limitation of dependent claim is logically inconsistent with that of the independent claim, it is a problem under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  In other words, something that infringes a dependent claim should necessarily infringe the independent claim from which the dependent claim depends.  When that is not true, there is something wrong with the claim drafting.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Forest Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Apotex Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 15-018-GMS (D.Del., November 8, 2016) (consolidated), the Court rendered its Markman opinion construing seven (7) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,417,175 (“the ‘175 patent”) and 8,247,400 (“the ‘400 patent”). The patents-in-suit relate to new cephem compounds useful for the treatment of bacterial infections and pharmaceutical compositions containing the compounds.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.