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 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
  • Chief Judge Stark Denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims for Direct, Indirect and Willful Infringement By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in 3 Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for direct, indirect and willful infringement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In short, Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s pre-suit induced infringement and contributory and willful infringement claims failed to meet the pleading standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.... More
  • Chief Judge Stark Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement as to Date of Conception for Patent-in-Suit By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in The Gillette Company LLC v. Dollar Shave Club, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 15-1158-LPS-CJB (D.Del. March 21, 2019), the Court, among other things, denied Plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment as to the date of conception for the ‘513 patent. Plaintiff sought summary judgment that the invention of the ‘513 Patent was conceived in February 1998, which would have been before the prior art in the Bray Patent. Id.... More
  • Judge Noreika Denies Defendant’s Motion for Finding of Spoliation and for Sanctions Against Plaintiff that Failed to Preserve ESI By Memorandum Opinion entered by the Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Cignex Datamatics, Inc. v. Lam Research Corp., Civil Action No. 17-320-MN (D.Del. March 11, 2019), the Court denied the motion of defendant Lam Research Corporation seeking a finding of spoliation and entry of sanctions against plaintiff Cignex Datamatics, Inc. for failure to preserve the emails of certain employees of plaintiff that worked on the software development project that was the subject of the breach of contract litigation between plaintiff and... More
  • United States District Court for the District of Delaware Announces Selection of New U.S. Magistrate Judge The United States District Court for the District of Delaware has announced the selection of Jennifer L. Hall to fill the new United States Magistrate Judge position in the District of Delaware.  A copy of the Court’s announcement is attached.... More
  • Judge Connolly Dismisses Some of Plaintiff’s Claims for Enhanced Damages Based on Willful Infringement By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in Deere & Company v AGCO Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 18-827-CFC (D.Del. February 19, 2019), the Court granted in part and denied in part the identical motions of defendants AGCO Corporation and Precision Planting LLC to dismiss Plaintiff Deere & Company’s claims for enhanced damages based on willful infringement for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure... More
  • Judge Noreika Grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Antitrust Claims for Failure to State a Claim By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in Prescient Medicine Holdings, LLC v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, et al., Civil Action No. 18-600-MN (D.Del. February 14, 2019), the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) after finding that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to assert its antitrust claims. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants conspired to exclude Plaintiff from providing laboratory testing services to... More
  • Judge Andrews Affirms His Prior Decision to Dismiss Patent Infringement Action Against Washington Corporation for Improper Venue By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in T-JAT Systems 2006 LTD. v. Expedia, Inc. (DE) et al., Civil Action No. 16-581-RGA (D.Del. January 29, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s prior opinion and order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for patent infringement against Defendant Expedia-WA, a Washington corporation, for improper venue. In opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiff argued that venue over Expedia-WA exists “under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b),... More