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

  • The U.S. Supreme Court Reverses the Federal Circuit in TC Heartland and Rules that “Residence” in Patent Venue Statute Means Only the State of Incorporation Today, through a unanimous decision of the Court delivered by Justice Thomas (with the exception of Justice Gorsuch who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), the U.S. Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. _____ (2017) reversed the Federal Circuit in ruling that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) remains the only applicable patent venue statute, the term “residence” in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) refers only to the State of... More
  • Judge Robinson Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Asserting Patents Claim Ineligible Subject Matter By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Paltalk Holdings, Inc. v. Riot Games, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-1240-SLR (D.Del. May 15, 2017), the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss which asserted that dismissal of the Complaint was appropriate because the asserted patents do not claim patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 5,822,523 (“the ‘523 patent”) and 6,226,686 (“the ‘686 patent”). The ‘523 patent and the ‘686 patent... More
  • Judge Andrews Substantially Denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Defendant Expert’s Opinions on Definition of Relevant Market in Antitrust Action By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Insight Equity d/b/a Vision-Ease Lens Worldwide v. Transitions Optical, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-635-RGA (D.Del. May 9, 2017), the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of Defendant’s expert which defined the relevant market for purposes of the antitrust claims. Defendant’s expert defined the relevant market in the case to include both photochromic and clear lenses and used two econometric tests –... More
  • Judge Sleet Issues Markman Order in Infringement Action Construing Three (3) Disputed Terms in Patent-in-Suit   By Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Avid Technology, Inc. v. Harmonic Inc., Civil Action No. 12-627-GMS (D.Del. May 2, 2017), the Court rendered its Markman ruling construing three (3) disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,495,291 (“the ‘291 patent”). The ‘291 patent relates to methods and apparatus for a video decompression system for decompressing consecutive streams of compressed video data to provide continuous, uninterrupted decompressed video data output stream. A copy of the Markman Order is attached.... More
  • Judge Sleet Grants TuffStuff’s Motion to Transfer Patent Infringement Action By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. TuffStuff Fitness et al., Civil Action No. 16-733-GMS (D.Del. April 27, 2017), the Court granted the motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of California of defendant TuffStuff Fitness International Inc. After analyzing the Jumara factors, the Court found that TuffStuff met its burden of demonstrating that the interests of justice and convenience strongly favor... More
  • Judge Andrews Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Certain Patent Counterclaims after Finding the Subject Patents Claim Abstract Ideas   By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in D&M Holdings Inc. et al. v. Sonos, Inc., Civil Action No. 16-141-RGA (D.Del. April 18, 2017), the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First and Third Counterclaims for Patent Infringement after finding that the asserted claims in the patents that are the subject of those counterclaims are drawn to abstract ideas and do not provide an inventive concept. Specifically, the Court found that U.S. Patent No. 7,343,435 (“the... More
  • The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet to Take Senior Status   On April 13, 2017, the United States Court for the District of Delaware announced that The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet will take senior status as of May 1, 2017.  Judge Sleet has served as a District Judge for the District of Delaware since 1998.  He served as Chief Judge for the District of Delaware from 2007 to 2014. The Court’s announcement notes that Judge Sleet has handled one of the busiest, most complex dockets in the nation during his nearly 19 years on the... More
  • Judge Sleet Grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Induced Infringement Claims But Denies Motion as to Direct Infringement Claims By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in IP Communication Solutions, LLC v. Viber Media (USA) Inc., Civil Action No. 16-134-GMS (D.Del. April 5, 2017), the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s claim of induced infringement but denied Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff’s claim of direct infringement. Id. at *7 and 9. In denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss... More
  • Judge Andrews Denies Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Asserting Lack of Patent-Eligible Subject Matter By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-1330-RGA (D.Del. March 13, 2017), the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for Lack of Patent-Eligible Subject Matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents at issue in the motion were U.S. Patent Nos. 8,588,949 (“the ‘949 patent”), 7,571,014 (“the ‘014 patent”), 9,202,509 (“the ‘509 patent”), and 9,219,959... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement in ANDA Action By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Civil Action No. 14-1203-LPS (D.Del. March 6, 2017), the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,955,821 (“the ‘821 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,838,032 (“the ‘032 patent”) with respect to Defendants’ proposed generic version of Mucinex® DM, an extended-release tablet that contains dextromethorphan hydrobromide and guaifenesin. The claim limitations of the... More