Delaware Intellectual Property Law Update
November 11, 2022
Publication| Intellectual Property
Welcome to the latest edition of the Richards, Layton & Finger Intellectual Property Law Update. As always, if you have questions about any of the decisions discussed below or the District of Delaware in general, please let us know.
Judge Noreika Excludes Expert Damages Testimony for Failure to Apportion Value in License
In Rex Medical L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 19-0005-MN (Oct. 13, 2022), Judge Noreika excluded under Daubert the reasonable royalty testimony of the plaintiff’s damages expert.
Read More >>
Judge Williams Strikes Lack of Written Description Defenses as Untimely
In Sysmex Corp. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., No. 19-1642-GBW (Oct. 12, 2022), newly appointed Judge Williams granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike one of the defendant’s lack of written description defenses.
Read More >>
Judge Williams Denies Motion to Bifurcate Trial into Contract and Patent Infringement Phases
In Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC, No. 20-887-GBW (Oct. 3, 2022), Judge Williams denied the defendant’s request under Fed. R. Civ P. 42(b) first to try the parties’ contract dispute and separately to try their patent infringement dispute later only if needed. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufactured products that fell outside the scope of a license made as part of a settlement agreement and therefore infringed the asserted patent.
Read More >>
Judge Noreika Grants Motion for Remittitur
In ArcherDX, LLC v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC, No. 18-1019-MN (Sept. 30, 2022), Judge Noreika granted the defendants’ request for remittitur. The plaintiffs had prevailed at trial on patent infringement claims.
Read More >>
Judge Andrews Adopts Magistrate Judge Recommendation to Dismiss Claim on Grounds of Claim Preclusion
In Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Apotex Corp., No. 20-804-RGA (Sept. 15, 2022), Judge Andrews adopted the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hall that claim preclusion should bar the plaintiff’s assertion of infringement of one of the asserted patents. The parties had litigated the patent at issue in an earlier case, after which the plaintiff had amended claims of that patent during an inter partes review proceeding.
Read More >>