By Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 04-1371-LPS (D.Del., January 18, 2011), the Court granted in part and denied in part the post-trial motion of the prevailing Plaintiff, Power Integrations, Inc. (“Power”), to declare the case exceptional and to award Power treble damages and its attorneys’ fees. Specifically, the Court granted Power’s motion for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to the extent that it enhanced Power’s damages two times (i.e. 200%) as opposed to trebling damages. Id. at 22. The Court denied Power’s motion to declare the case exceptional and to award attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Id. at 24.

Complete copies of the Court’s Opinion and Order are attached.
 

Continue Reading Judge Stark Grants Prevailing Plaintiff’s Request For Enhanced Damages In Part And Denies Request For Award Of Attorneys’ Fees

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Apple Inc., et al. v. High Tech Computer Corp., et al., Civil Action Nos. 10-166-GMS and 10-167-GMS (D.Del.

Continue Reading Chief Judge Sleet Denies HTC Corp.’s Motion To Transfer Venue to Northern District of California

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Cooper Notification, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-865-LPS (D.Del., December 13, 2010), the Court denied

Continue Reading Judge Stark Denies Defendants’ Motion to Stay Patent Infringement Action Pending Resolution of Reexamination Proceeding Before USPTO

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson on November 9, 2010, the Court denied the Skype defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Upon analyzing the amended complaint, the Court found that the amended complaint “contains sufficient factual matter, under Igbal, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 6. The Court noted that, “[w]hile the amended complaint is neither succinct nor representative of artful drafting, the court concludes that plaintiffs have now met the minimum requirements under Rule 8.” Id.

A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
 

Continue Reading Judge Robinson Denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

By Order entered on October 29, 2010 followed by a Memorandum Opinion entered by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet on November 5, 2010 in the consolidated action, Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 08-335-GMS (D.Del.), the Court held that the prior art rules found in 35 U.S.C. § 102 ("§ 102") including the dates set forth in the relevant provisions of § 102, shall apply to its analysis of determining the relevant date(s) for whether a reference or use constitutes prior art for the purposes of an obviousness-type double patenting defense. Id. at 7.

Copies of the Order and Memorandum Opinion are attached.

Continue Reading Court Holds That Prior Art Rules Found in 35 U.S.C. § 102 Apply to Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Analysis

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge in Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 09-80-LPS-MPT (October 6, 2010), the

Continue Reading Judge Thynge Denies Motion to Bifurcate Parties’ Damages Claims in Patent Action

By Report and Recommendation entered on October 13, 2010, The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge, in Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., et al. v. Xoft, Inc., C.A. No. 10-308-LPS-MPT, analyzed the motion of defendant Xoft, Inc. ("Xoft") to transfer the case from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and recommended that Xoft’s motion be denied.  A copy of the Report and Recommendation is attached.

Continue Reading Judge Thynge Recommends Denial of Xoft’s Motion to Transfer Case from Delaware

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 Order entered by The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge in Xerox Corporation v. Google, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10-136-JJF-MPT (D.Del., September 8, 2010), the Court concluded that defendants failed to show good cause to preclude plaintiff’s trial counsel in the patent infringement action that were exposed to defendants’ confidential information from participating in amendment of plaintiff’s patents during reexamination proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).

A complete copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.
 

Continue Reading Court Denies Defendants’ Request to Preclude Plaintiff’s Trial Counsel Exposed to Defendants’ Confidential Information from Participating in Patent Reexamination