Articles Posted in D. Delaware

Published on:

Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC (collectively “Google”) filed a motion for leave to amend their answer to include an implied license affirmative defense. Because Google filed the motion to amend its answer more than two months after the district court’s scheduling order’s deadline to amend the pleadings, Google had to show good cause for the district court to grant its motion.

The district court noted that Google did not file its present motion to amend until December 22, 2015, near the end of the fact discovery deadline of February 26, 2016. The district court also noted that “[t]he basis of Google’s implied license defense is VideoShare’s June 21, 2013 covenant not to sue for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,987,492. Nonetheless, Google failed to include the implied license defense in its pleadings for a year and a half after VideoShare entered the covenant not to sue. Google has made no attempt to explain its delay in presenting this defense. Google does not contend that it lacked sufficient information to meet the amendment deadline, or that it discovered new information that could not be timely pled. Therefore, Google has not demonstrated why its amended defense could not have been sought in a timely manner.”
Continue reading

Published on:

Plaintiffs asserted that defendants infringed several patents. The district court bifurcated liability and damages for all four patent infringement claims. After a jury trial, the jury concluded that the patents were valid and infringed. Subsequently, after an inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a Final Written Decision that found all asserted claims of one of the patents-in-suit unpatentable.

The district court denied the defendants’ post-trial motions with respect to most of the patents, but withheld any decision on any issues pertaining to the ‘244 patent, which was the subject of the PTAB proceeding and a pending appeal from the PTAB decision. The defendants then filed a motion for certification of partial final judgment on the patent infringement claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Continue reading

Published on:

When this patent infringement action began, the plaintiff explained that it was concerned that it would not be able to obtain important discovery if Ricoh Company Ltd. (“RCL”), which is the parent company of the defendants, Ricoh Electronics, Inc. (“REI”) and Ricoh Americas Corp. (“RAC”) were dismissed as a party. When they moved for dismissal, the defendants represented that: “IV identifies no information exclusively within the possession of RCL that is germane to its infringement case. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable and a hardship on RCL to force it to participate in litigation halfway around the world, particularly when RAC and REI are able and willing to contest IV’s claims.”

As explained by the district court, after the dismissal of RCL, REI and RAC stated that the technical documents sought by IV were not in their possession or control, but might be obtained from RCL. RCL then refused to provide the documents voluntarily. Unable to obtain the discovery from REI and RAC, IV sought discovery from RCL through international Letters Rogatory. That request was denied by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Continue reading

Published on:

In this patent infringement action, a dispute arose between Plaintiff Blackbird Tech LLC (“Blackbird”) and the defendants over the terms of proposed protective orders to govern the use of confidential information produced. Although the parties agreed that a protective order was appropriate, they disagreed on the level of access by Blackbird’s in-house counsel and the scope of a patent prosecution bar.

The district court explained that the protective order presented a unique circumstance given Blackbird’s business, which was described as “a new model for individual inventors and small companies to monetize their intellectual property.” “Blackbird achieves this goal by acquiring patents and litigating on behalf of itself, using experienced patent litigators that are directly employed by Blackbird instead of outside counsel, at a great cost savings.” Blackbird also described the acquisition of patents as being “essential” to its business. An important part of Blackbird’s business model is to maintain “a diverse portfolio of patents and not to be concentrated in one technological area.”
Continue reading

Published on:

As this patent infringement action proceeded to trial, Google filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Google’s petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims of the patent-in-suit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) denial of institution of those petitions. Google had previously filed petitions with the PTAB seeking to invalidate the patent-in-suit and the PTAB had declined to institute review of the petitions.
Continue reading

Published on:

Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) filed two declaratory judgment actions against Sprint seeking to invalidate six Sprint patents and seeking a declaration of non-infringement of seven Sprint patents. Cisco is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Sprint is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Overland Park, Kansas.
Continue reading

Published on:

Adidas AG (“Adidas”), filed a patent infringement action against Under Armour, Inc. (“Under Armour”) and MapMyFitness, Inc. (“MapMyFitness”) alleging that they infringed over a dozen patents. After Under Armour and MapMyFitness filed answers and counterclaims, the district court held a Markman Hearing and issued a claim construction order.

After the claim construction order, the defendants filed a motion to modify the district court’s claim construction. The defendants requested that the district court modify its construction of the term “route path” based on actions taken by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Prior to the claim construction order, Under Armour filed a Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of one of the patents-in-suit.
Continue reading

Published on:

The District Court granted Transcend’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of non-infringement and denied the patent owner’s, Glaukos’, motion on the issue of inequitable conduct. The District Court then set a bench trial on the issue of inequitable conduct.

In light of these rulings, Glaukos argued that the inequitable conduct trial should be postponed because the infringement ruling resolved the gravamen of the dispute between the parties and a trial on the inequitable conduct issue would be a waste of resources and potentially unnecessary in the event that the infringement ruling is affirmed on appeal.
Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff CRFD Research, Inc. (“CRFD”) filed a patent infringement action defendants Dish Network Corporation, Dish DBS Corporation, Dish Network L.L.C., Echostar Corporation, and Echostar Technologies L.L.C. (collectively, “Dish Network”). CRFD also filed separate actions against defendants Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”), Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”), and Spotify USA Inc. (“Spotify”). CRFD alleges that each of the above-captioned defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,191,233 (“the ‘233 Patent”).

Certain of the defendants, Hulu, Netflix, and Spotify, filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ‘233 Patent with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Those same defendants then filed a motion to stay the proceeding pending the review by the PTAB, even though the PTAB had not yet accepted the petition for hearing. Dish Network then filed a separate petition for IPR and also filed a motion to join the other defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay.
Continue reading

Published on:

Invista North America S.A. R.L. (“Invistia”) filed a patent infringement action against M&G USA Corporation (“M&G”). As the case progressed toward trial, both parties exchanged expert reports on damages, which implicated the entire market value rule.

As explained by the Federal Circuit, the entire market value rule is derived from Supreme Court precedent requiring that the patentee ‘must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and unpatented features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative.’ Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., — F.3d. —, 2015 WL 1529181 at *11 (Fed. Cir. April 7, 2015).
Continue reading