Chief Judge Stark Orders that Voluntary Dismissal Be with Prejudice
In Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., No. 15-379-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2017, unsealed Feb. 15, 2018), Chief Judge Stark denied the plaintiff’s request that its voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) of one of the asserted patents be without prejudice and that each party bear its own fees and costs. The plaintiff…
Magistrate Judge Burke Orders Narrowing of Claims and Prior Art
In Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., No. 17-600-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Feb. 5, 2018), Magistrate Judge Burke ordered the parties to reduce in two stages the number of asserted claims and prior art combinations involving the three asserted patents. The plaintiffs first were ordered to reduce the number of asserted claims to 40, then…
Judge Andrews Grants Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement and No Enhanced Damages
In Ansell Healthcare Products LLC v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 15-915-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2018), Judge Andrews granted Reckitt Benckiser LLC’s motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement and no enhanced damages. The plaintiff, Ansell Healthcare Products LLC, argued that Reckitt’s alleged infringement was willful because it sold the accused products even though it…
Judge Andrews Overrules Objections to Special Master’s Order Finding Litigation Financing Communications Not Privileged
In Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 16-453-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 9, 2018), Judge Andrews overruled objections to a special master’s order compelling production of emails that had been withheld as privileged between the plaintiff, Acceleration Bay LLC, and a litigation financing company. Acceleration Bay resisted production on three bases: the work-product doctrine, the…
Chief Judge Stark Finds Patent Not Enabled on Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
In Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., No. 14-846-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2018), Chief Judge Stark granted the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted patent was not enabled. The plaintiffs, Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC and Universita Degli Studi di Cagliari (together, “Idenix”), sued the defendant, Gilead Sciences, Inc., for…
Magistrate Judge Burke Grants in Part Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review
In Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc., No. 17-807-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Feb. 15, 2018), Magistrate Judge Burke granted in part the plaintiff’s motion to stay pending inter partes review of the defendant’s three IPR petitions. Among the three petitions, the deadlines for the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final written decisions ranged from one…
Magistrate Judge Fallon Denies Request to Re-Assign Case
In Kelly Services, Inc. v. Kelly & Associates Financial Services, Inc., No. 16-408-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Feb. 26, 2018), a trademark case, Magistrate Judge Fallon denied the plaintiffs’ unopposed request to re-assign the case to another judge. The basis for the plaintiffs’ request was that Judge Fallon had conducted a mediation with the parties in which “substantive”…
Judge Andrews Invalidates Patent Under Section 101
In D&M Holdings Inc. v. Sonos, Inc., No. 16-141-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 20, 2018), Judge Andrews granted summary judgment that one of the patents asserted by the plaintiffs was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. The patent at issue claimed a method of recalling previous audio preferences when playing a…
Creditors’ Committee Cannot Obtain Derivative Standing to Sue Fiduciaries of an LLC
In 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery surprised many in CML v. Bax by holding that creditors of a limited liability company (LLC) cannot be granted derivative standing to sue members, managers or controllers for breach of fiduciary duty — even if the LLC is insolvent. This created a different regime for LLCs than what…
The Delaware Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Directors’ Fiduciary Duty of Disclosure
In Appel v. Berkman, the DelawareSupreme Court reversed the Delaware Courtof Chancery’sdismissal of claims relating to themerger of Diamond Resorts International,Inc. (“Diamond”), finding that the stockholdersof Diamond were not fully informedwhen they tendered their shares in a first-step tender offer followed by a back-end mergerunder Section 251(h) of the DelawareGeneral Corporation Law (DGCL). Inreversing the…