inequitable conduct

Subscribe to inequitable conduct

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Hyosung TNS, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 19-1695-LPS (D.Del. March 4,…
Continue Reading Chief Judge Stark Allows a Portion of Defendants’ Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense of Inequitable Conduct to Proceed After Considering Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike

By Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Belcher Pharmaceutical, LLC v. Hospira, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-775-LPS (D.Del. March 31, 2020), following a two day bench…
Continue Reading Chief Judge Stark Finds that Defendant Hospira Does Not Infringe Plaintiff Belcher’s Patent-in-Suit and Patent is Invalid and Unenforceable

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Genentech, Inc. et al. v. Amgen, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-1407-CFC, Consol. (D.Del. February 12, 2020), the Court…
Continue Reading Judge Connolly Denies Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer to Add Affirmative Defense that Patent-in-Suit is Unenforceable Due to Plaintiff’s Inequitable Conduct Before the PTO

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 12-1394-LPS (D.Del., November 20, 2014) (consolidated), the Court granted…
Continue Reading Chief Judge Stark Allows Defendants to Amend Their Answer to Add Inequitable Conduct Before USPTO Defense

By Opinion issued by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Pronova Biopharma Norge AS v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 09-286-SLR (D.Del., May 29, 2012)…

Continue Reading Following Seven Day Bench Trial, Judge Robinson Finds Plaintiff Pronova Did Prove Infringement of Its ‘667 and ‘077 Patents by Defendants in ANDA Action

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Softview LLC v. Apple, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC, Civil Action No. 10-389-LPS (D.Del., September 30, 2011), the…

Continue Reading Judge Stark Grants Softview’s Motion to Strike Defendants Apple and AT&T Mobility’s Inequitable Conduct Defenses

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

By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark, in Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-862-LPS (D.Del., June 24, 2010), the Court granted in part and denied in part defendant Facebook’s Motion for Leave to Amend Its Responsive Pleading to Add a Defense and Counterclaim of Inequitable Conduct and to Amend Its False Marking Counterclaim. Specifically, the Court’s Order allowed Facebook to add an affirmative defense of inequitable conduct and a declaratory judgment counterclaim, but did not permit Facebook to amend its existing false marking counterclaim. Id. at 10.Continue Reading Judge Stark Grants Facebook’s Motion to Amend in Part and Denies It in Part

In Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-779-SLR, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, by and through a memorandum opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson on June 14, 2010, entered judgment in favor of defendants, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”), and against plaintiffs, Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (“Senju”), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Kyorin”) and Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”). The case is an infringement action that was tried by bench trial on January 12-14, 2010. In rendering judgment in favor of defendants, the Court concluded among other things that, although plaintiffs had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants’ ANDA product infringed claims 1-3, 6,7, and 9 of the patent in dispute, U.S. Patent No. 6,333,045 (“the ‘045 patent”), defendants demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that those claims are invalid based on obviousness given the asserted prior art. Id. at 15-21 and 37.

A complete copy of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 Continue Reading Judge Robinson Enters Judgment in Favor of Defendants Apotex Upon Finding Patent Claims Invalid Based on Obviousness

In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118383, Magistrate Judge Stark analyzed defendant Fairchild’s motion to strike and dismiss certain counterclaims and affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and/or patent misuse asserted by plaintiff Power under the pleading standards articulated by the Federal Circuit in Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).  After analyzing each of the counterclaims and affirmative defenses at issue, Judge Stark recommended that defendant Fairchild’s motion be granted in part and denied in part.

Continue Reading JUDGE STARK ANALYZES AND ISSUES HIS RECOMMENDATION ON PARTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DISMISS CONSISTENT WITH EXERGEN