Intellectual Property – Post-Trial

November 8, 2013

Publication| Intellectual Property

Judge Sleet Denies Post-Trial Motions and Declines to Award Attorneys’ Fees

In Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp. et al., C.A. No. 10-593-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2013), Chief Judge Sleet denied certain post-trial motions on infringement and validity and declined to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Court concluded that the jury’s verdict was supported by substantial evidence on the infringement and validity issues and denied the request for attorneys’ fees after finding that plaintiff’s “conduct in [the] case [did] not rise to a level of bad faith or vexatious litigation that warrants an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.”

Judge Robinson Issues Post-Trial Opinion

In Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. et al. v. Lupin Limited et al., C.A. No. 11-271-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2013), Judge Robinson found that the ANDA product directly infringed certain claims of the patent, but held that the same claims that were infringed were also invalid for obviousness.

Judge Robinson Issues Post-Trial Decision on Validity and Infringement

In Cephalon Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., C.A. No. 11-164-SLR (D. Del. July 22, 2013), Judge Robinson found that defendant’s products practiced “each and every requirement of the disputed limitations” contained in certain patents and that defendant was liable for indirect infringement of certain patents. With respect to validity, Judge Robinson found that certain patents were not invalid for anticipation or obviousness.

  • 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.