Close

Articles Posted in D. Delaware

Updated:

Patent Claims for Abstract “Conditional Action” Held Ineligible Subject Matter

In UbiComm LLC v. Zappos IP Inc., No. 1-13-cv-01029 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2013), the court dismissed the asserted patent claims as being directed at an abstract idea that was patent ineligible. Plaintiff UbiComm LLC (“UbiComm”) alleged that Zappos IP Inc.’s (“Zappos”) websites infringed method claims of United States Patent…

Updated:

Robocast v. Apple and Microsoft: Preliminary Surveys Ordered Produced Even Where Expert Did Not Rely Upon Surveys and Had Deleted Them Before Creating His Expert Report

Robocast filed patent infringement actions against Apple and Microsoft. As expert reports were underway, Apple and Microsoft moved to compel undisclosed surveys that were commissioned by one of Robocast’s experts. As the Magistrate Judge explained, “Specifically, I am asked to resolve the parties’ dispute concerning certain undisclosed surveys commissioned by…

Updated:

Softview v. Apple: District Court Grants Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Even Though It Had Denied Previous Request for Stay Pending Reexamination

In this patent infringement action, a number of the defendants moved to stay the case pending an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the patent-in-suit. The district court had previously denied a motion to stay pending a previous reexamination proceeding before the patent office. In October 2012, shortly after the America…

Updated:

Parallel Networks Cases Centralized in the Eastern District of Texas Over Parallel Networks Objection

Parallel Networks had several lawsuits pending against different defendants in different district courts. The pending litigations consisted of nine actions, pending in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware. Four defendants sought centralization of the litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Three of the District of…

Updated:

Robocast v. Apple/Microsoft: Transfer Motion Denied Where Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum Was Given Deference and the Relative Size and Strength of the Parties Weighed Against Transfer

In two separate actions, Robocast sued Apple and Microsoft for patent infringement. Apple responded by filing a motion to transfer and Microsoft subsequently filed a similar motion to transfer. Both complaints are centered on U.S. Patent No. 7,155,451 (the “‘451 Patent”), which is directed toward an “Automated Browsing System for…

Updated:

Microsoft and Google Strike Back: Declaratory Judgment Action Remains in Delaware Even Though Defendant Had Sued 450 Microsoft and Google Customers in Texas

Microsoft and Google sued Geotag in the District of Delaware for a declaration that their customers did not infringe a Geotag patent, “Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information,” and that the patent was invalid. Geotag had sued in excess of 450 companies in the Eastern District of…

Updated:

Delaware District Court Denies Production of Documents Pertaining to Third-Party Licensing Company Holding That the Documents Are Protected by the Common Interest Privilege

Xerox Corporation (“Xerox”) filed a patent infringement action against Google and Yahoo! in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. After construing certain terms of the patent-in-suit as part of a claim construction proceeding, the district court resolved a discovery dispute between the parties over the production…

Updated:

Another Motion to Transfer Denied in Delaware Even Where Plaintiff, Defendant and Witnesses Are Located in California

It is fast becoming clear that it is very difficult to transfer a patent infringement case out of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware when the defendant is incorporated in Delaware. In this case, Netgear sued Ruckus Wireless for patent infringement in the District of Delaware.…

Updated:

Delaware District Court Grants Motion to Transfer Even Though Transferee Court Did Not Have Personal Jurisdiction over the Plaintiff

Plaintiff brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against defendants asserting declaratory judgment, antitrust, Lanham Act and state tort claims based on two patents co-owned by the defendants. The defendants moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Central…

Contact Us