Delaware Intellectual Property Law Update

June 5, 2019

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 listed below or the District of Delaware in general, please let us know.

Chief Judge Stark Denies Motion to Dismiss Hatch-Waxman Claim 
In Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. International Medication Systems, Ltd., No. 18-960-LPS-CJB (Mar. 31, 2019), Chief Judge Stark denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  The defendant had filed a new drug application under 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(2) with a Paragraph IV certification that the patent-in-suit was invalid, prompting the litigation. 

Judge Andrews Denies Motion to Dismiss for Unpatentable Subject Matter
In RICPI Communications LLC v. JPS Interoperability Solutions, Inc., No. 18-1507-RGA (Mar. 18, 2019), Judge Andrews denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for claiming unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The challenged patent concerned radio-over-internet protocol.  

Judge Connolly Holds that Validity Is Not a Single Issue for Purposes of Preclusion
In Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, No. 17-205-CFC (Mar. 12, 2019), Judge Connolly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to preclude the defendants from challenging the invalidity of the asserted patent.  In an earlier case, the plaintiffs had accused one of the defendants here of infringing the same patent, but by a different product.  

Judge Andrews Grants Motions for Exceptional Case and Attorneys’ Fees
In Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., No. 18-444-RGA (Mar. 18, 2019), and a related case, Judge Andrews granted the defendants’ motions for exceptional case and attorneys’ fees.  

Magistrate Judge Fallon Denies Motion for Exceptional Case
In Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 17-184-JFB-SRF (Mar. 8, 2019), Magistrate Judge Fallon denied the defendant’s motion to declare the case exceptional.  The defendant had prevailed on a license defense. 

Judge Noreika Denies Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
In Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., No. 19-149-MN (Mar. 5, 2019), Judge Noreika denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.  The plaintiffs initially moved to preliminarily enjoin the defendants’ accused mitral valve repair system from infringing the asserted patents.  

Chief Judge Stark Denies Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration
In Dorco Co. v. Gillette Co., No. 18-1306-LPS-CJB (Mar. 14, 2019), Chief Judge Stark denied the defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration (brought both under the Federal Arbitration Act and as a matter of judicial discretion) and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion to enjoin arbitration.  

Judge Connolly Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 18-802-CFC (Mar. 28, 2019), Judge Connolly dismissed the plaintiff’s infringement claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  

Chief Judge Stark Partially Grants Motion for Exceptional Case and Attorneys’ Fees
In Cosmo Technologies Ltd. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., No. 15-164-LPS (Mar. 27, 2019), and related case, Chief Judge Stark granted the defendants’ motion to declare the cases exceptional and to award attorneys’ fees.  At trial, the Court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment of non-infringement on partial findings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c) at the close of the plaintiffs’ case-in-chief.  

  • sign up for our newsletter

    To keep our clients and friends updated on the latest legal news, Richards Layton distributes practice area e-alerts and newsletters. If you are interested in receiving these publications, please subscribe below.