Intellectual Property

IP Litigation

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog

https://delawareintellectualproperty.foxrothschild.com/

Wilmington attorney Gregory B. Williams explores the decisions issued by the U.S. District Court of Delaware in the areas of antitrust and intellectual property law.

Recent Blog Posts

  • 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
  • Chief Judge Stark Grants Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay Utilizing First-Filed Rule By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Beijing Sinotau Medical Research Co., Ltd. v. Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 17-110-LPS-MPT (D.Del. March 1, 2017), the Court granted defendants’ joint motion to stay the action filed by plaintiff in the District of Delaware pursuant to the “first-filed” rule. In granting the motion, the Court explained that (1) defendant Navidea had filed an action against plaintiff Beijing Sinotau in the Southern District of Ohio the... More
  • Judge Sleet Finds that Actavis’ Proposed ANDA Products Infringe Recro’s Asserted Patents By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Recro Gainesville LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., Civil Action No. 14-1118-GMS (D.Del. February 24, 2017)(consolidated), the Court, following a three-day bench trial and having considered the entire record in the case and the applicable law, concluded that Actavis’ proposed ANDA products infringe all of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,132,096 (“the ‘096 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,902,742 (“the ‘742 patent”). As a result, the Court... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Ineligibility By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Symantec Corp. et al., C.A. No. 13-440-LPS (D.Del. February 13, 2017), the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of patent ineligibility upon finding that the claims at issue – claims 25 and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 5,537,533 (“the ‘533 patent”) – (1) are directed to an abstract idea, and (2) fail to include any inventive concept sufficient to elevate them... More
  • Judge Andrews Grants in Part Teva’s Motion to Dismiss ANDA Complaint By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Actavis Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-1381-RGA (D.Del. February 8, 2017), the Court granted defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Counts II and VI of the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). With respect to Counts II and VI, Teva argued that it was not a proper defense because “all alleged... More
  • District of Delaware Announces Judge Sue Robinson’s Transition to Senior Judge The United States District Court for the District of Delaware announced that, effective February 3, 2017, the Honorable Sue L. Robinson, transitioned to Senior Judge.  In the announcement, the Court also set forth certain changes to its case assignment practices given Judge Robinson’s transition to a Senior United States District Judge.  In short, Judge Robinson will not be assigned any new criminal cases or new civil cases.  Until the vacancy is filled, all new criminal cases will be assigned to Chief Judge Stark, Judge... More