Patents

Subscribe to Patents

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Tarkus Imaging, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10-63-LPS (D.Del., April 21, 2011), the Court denied…

Continue Reading Judge Stark Denies Holding Company’s Motion To Dismiss Patent Infringement Complaint

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 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 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

On July 26, 2010, through an Opinion and Order entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson, the District of Delaware ruled on ten motions in the two related patent infringement actions captioned, Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-72-SLR, and Cisco Systems v. Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft mbH, Civil Action No. 09-232-SLR. The patents in suit relate to voice over internet protocol telephony. The problem claimed to be solved by the invention is how to use internet telephony without interrupting the real-time transfer of data. Id. at 16.

In light of the breadth and length of the Opinion, which is fifty-seven (57) pages, this posting focuses only on the Court’s ruling with respect to the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. In that regard, Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft (“SSBG”) sought partial summary judgment that Cisco’s 1861, 881 SRST and 888 SRST router products infringe claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,954,453 (“the ‘453 patent”), claim 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,483,431 (“the ‘431 patent”) and claims 69 and 84 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,902 (“the ‘902 patent”). Cisco sought summary judgment that its router products did not infringe the patents under any of the fourteen infringing scenarios identified by SSBG’s expert in his infringement report. Id. at 13. In short, the Court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and denied SSBG’s motion for summary judgment of infringement. Id. at 30-31. A complete copy of the Opinion is attached.
 Continue Reading Judge Robinson Grants Cisco Systems’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement