Blog – Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation

http://delawareintellectualproperty.foxrothschild.com/

Greg explores the decisions issued by the U.S. District Court of Delaware in the areas of antitrust and intellectual property law in the firm's Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation blog.

Recent Blog Posts

  • Judge Andrews Construes Two Phrases in Dispute in Patent-in-Suit and Finds Dependent Claim Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-839-RGA (D.Del., November 30, 2016), the Court issued its claim constructions for the two phrases in dispute in claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 (“the ‘298 patent”) and found that claim 8 of the ‘298 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it is a dependent claim that contradicts a limitation of the claim from which... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial and Issues Rulings on Motions in Limine in Patent Infringement Action By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 13-1987-LPS (D.Del., November 22, 2016) (consolidated), the Court denied Defendant’s motion requesting a continuance of the scheduled December 2016 trial and issued its ruling on certain motions in limine filed by the parties. The Court also forecasted that it would allocate each side between eighteen (18) and twenty-two (22) hours for its trial presentation, with... More
  • After Two Day Bench Trial in ANDA Action, Judge Robinson Finds The ‘353 Patent Valid But Not Infringed by Generic By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-874-SLR (D.Del., November 16, 2016), the Court found the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,127,353 (“the ‘353 patent”) are valid but that defendant does not infringe the asserted claims of the ‘353 patent with its ANDA product.[1] Specifically, the Court found in favor of plaintiff Merck and against defendant as to defendant’s asserted affirmative defenses... More
  • Judge Sleet Issues Markman Opinion in Infringement Action Construing Seven (7) Disputed Terms in Patents-in-Suit By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Forest Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Apotex Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 15-018-GMS (D.Del., November 8, 2016) (consolidated), the Court rendered its Markman opinion construing seven (7) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,417,175 (“the ‘175 patent”) and 8,247,400 (“the ‘400 patent”). The patents-in-suit relate to new cephem compounds useful for the treatment of bacterial infections and pharmaceutical compositions containing the compounds. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Issues Markman Opinion in Infringement Action Construing Nine (9) Disputed Terms in Patents-in-Suit By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in United Access Technologies, LLC v. Centurytel Broadband Services, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 11-339-LPS (D.Del., November 4, 2016) (consolidated), the Court rendered its Markman opinion construing nine (9) disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,844,596 (“the ‘596 patent”), 6,243,446 (“the ‘446 patent”) and 6,542,585 (“the ‘585 patent”). The patents-in-suit are directed to systems for transmitting data to residences or businesses over existing telephone wiring without interfering with telephone... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Grants Defendants’ Motion to Sever Claims with Respect to Infringement and Damages By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Vehicle IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 09-1007-LPS (D.Del. October 20, 2016), the Court granted, in part, the motion of Defendants Telenav Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC (“the Telenav Defendants”) to sever Plaintiff Vehicle IP’s claims against the Telenav Defendants from the claims against Defendants Telecommunications Systems, Inc., Networks in Motion, Inc., and Cellco Partnership (“the TCS Defendants”). Specifically, the Court granted Defendants’ motion... More
  • Judge Sleet Grants Plaintiff Arrowpoint Capital Corp.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment That It Has Valid and Legally Protectable Trademarks By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Arrowpoint Capital Corp. v. Arrowpoint Asset Management, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 10-161 (D.Del. October 11, 2016), the Court granted Plaintiff Arrowpoint Capital Corp.’s motion for partial summary judgment in its trademark infringement action against Defendants Arrowpoint Asset Management, LLC, et al. after finding that Arrowpoint Capital is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of ownership of certain marks containing the “ARROWPOINT” element and has valid and... More
  • Judge Andrews Concludes that Defendants Failed to Prove Affirmative Defenses of Obviousness and Implied License in ANDA Action By Trial Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews, following a bench trial, in Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 14-1382-RGA (consolidated) (D.Del. October 7, 2016), the Court ruled that defendants failed to prove their affirmative defenses of obviousness and implied license. Plaintiffs, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mallinckrodt LLC, filed these patent infringement actions against defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (collectively, “Amneal”), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Asserting Collateral Estoppel Bar of Plaintiff’s Claim for Pre-Suit Damages By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in United Access Technologies, LLC v. Frontier Communications Corp., Civil Action No. 11-341-LPS (D.Del. September 30, 2016), the Court denied Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings which argued that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred Plaintiff’s claim for pre-suit damages in the patent infringement action. It is motion, Defendant relied on a prior decision in another action, Inline Connection Corp. v. Earthlink, Civil Action No. 02-00272-MPT (D.Del), where the court... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Seeking to Have Patent-in-Suit Ruled Invalid or Terminally Disclaimed By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Novartis AG, et al. v. Ezra Ventures, LLC, Civil Action No. 15-150-LPS (D.Del. September 22, 2016), the Court denied Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings which argued that U.S. Patent No. 5,604,229 (“the ‘229 patent) should be ruled invalid, or otherwise terminally disclaimed for the time past the expiration date of unasserted U.S. Patent No. 6,004,565 (“the ’565 patent). Defendant’s motion challenged the validity of the patent term extension... More