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

  • Chief Judge Stark Grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Portion of Court’s Claim Construction Order By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 17-275-LPS (D.Del. June 12, 2019), the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the portion of the Court’s Claim Construction Order that determined that the term “kinetic steps” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,678,056 is indefinite. Initially, the Court concluded that “claim 1 ‘requires that the enzymatic reaction be able to be... More
  • Judge Noreika Denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction Seeking to Deny the U.S. Manufacture of Defendants’ Competing Device Based on Patent Infringement By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 19-149-MN (D.Del. June 6, 2019), the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction of Plaintiffs, Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. and Evalve, Inc., seeking to enjoin Defendants, Edwards Lifesciences Corp. and Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, from manufacturing their PASCAL mitral valve system in the United States.  Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants’ product infringed claims of U.S. Patent Numbers... More
  • Judge Noreika Stays Patent Infringement Action Pending Resolution of Plaintiff’s Appeal of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in the Inter Partes Review of the Patent-in-Suit By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Agrofresh Inc. v. Essentiv LLC et al., Civil Action No. 16-662-MN (D.Del. May 31, 2019), the Court granted the motion to stay of defendants pending resolution of plaintiff’s appeal to the Federal Circuit of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision in the inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,394,216 (“the ‘216 patent”) finding that all claims of the ‘216 patent are unpatentable.  In so... More
  • Judge Noreika Denies YouTube and Google’s Motion to Transfer Venue of Patent Infringement Action to Northern District of California By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Viretem Ventures, LLC v. YouTube, LLC and Google, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-917 – MN (D.Del. May 16, 2019), the Court denied the motion of Defendants YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) and Google LLC(“Google”) to transfer venue of the patent infringement action asserted by Plaintiff Virentem Ventures LLC (“Plaintiff”) to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff, YouTube and Google are all Delaware corporations with their principal... More
  • Judge Andrews Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Order Denying Remand By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in M. Denise Tolliver v. Highmark BCBSD, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-797-RGA (D.Del. May 13, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order denying remand to state court. In denying the motion, the Court explained that “[t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to ‘correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. A proper Rule 59 (e) motion must... More
  • Judge Connolly Grants Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Patent Infringement Action to Northern District of Texas By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. RMG Networks Holding Corp., Civil Action No. 18-1333-CFC (D.Del. May 6, 2019), the Court granted Defendant’s motion to transfer the patent infringement action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In so ruling, the Court determined that six of the twelve Jumara factors favored transfer, two factors weighed against transfer, and four factors were... More
  • Judge Noreika Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Alleging Direct Infringement of Asserted Patents By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Agrofresh Inc. v. Hazel Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-1486 –MN (D.Del. April 25, 2019), the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim of direct infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,017,849 (“the ‘849 Patent”) and 6,313,068 (“the ‘068 Patent”) after finding that Plaintiff’s complaint identified Defendant’s accused product, the specific claims in the asserted patents that Defendant’s accused product allegedly infringed, and how the accused product purportedly infringed those... More
  • Judge Andrews Grants Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as to Past Damages in Patent Infringement Action By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Express Mobile, Inc. v. Liquid Web, LLC, Civil Action No. 18-1177-RGA (D.Del. April 18, 2019), the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to past damages and denied their motions as to direct infringement. With respect to past damages, Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to plead compliance with the marking statute and that was a basis to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims to the extent that they sought past damages. Id. at... More
  • Judge Connolly Denies Defendants’ Motion Seeking to Exclude Plaintiffs Damages Expert’s Opinions on Lost Profits and Reasonably Royalty in Patent Infringement Action By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Colm J. Connolly in F’Real Foods, LLC et al. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-41-CFC (D.Del. April 12, 2019), the Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Dr. Michael P. Akemann, on lost profits and reasonable royalty. Defendants argued that “Dr. Akemann’s lost profits opinion [was] based on assumptions that are purely speculative and contrary to record evidence” and that “his reasonable royalty... More
  • Judge Andrews Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claiming Lack of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-1679-RGA (D.Del. April 8, 2019), the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,562,837 (“the ‘837 patent”) and 9,896,722 (“the ‘722 patent”), claim technology related to handling samples in a way that reduces sample contamination and sample loss. Id. at *1. In its motion,... More