In Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, LLC, C.A. No. 14-1422-SLR (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2017), Judge Robinson held that the testosterone injection patents at issue were not invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This decision followed an ANDA bench trial on invalidity. Although Judge Robinson credited the defendant with “successfully identif[ying] the…

Following a bench trial in AstraZenca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., C.A. No. 14-664-GMS (D. Del. Feb. 2, 2017), Judge Sleet determined that the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit were not invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In light of the trial testimony, Defendant Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”) argued that the asserted claims were…

In Intel Corp. v. Future Link Systems, LLC, C.A. No. 14-377-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2017), Chief Judge Stark ruled on a number of disputes concerning the parties’ privilege logs. After the initial teleconference, the Court “instructed the parties to ‘pick ten specific entries from the other side’s privilege log’ and then meet and confer regarding…

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, C.A. Nos. 12-193-LPS, 13-1632-LPS, 13-1633-LPS, 13-1635-LPS, 13-1636-LPS, 13-1637-LPS, 15-799-LPS, 15-800-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2017), Chief Judge Stark ruled on four motions to strike portions of expert reports and plaintiff Intellectual Ventures I LLC’s (“IV”) request for reconsideration of the Court’s invalidity ruling in light of recent…

In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis Inc., C.A. No. 14-1381-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 8, 2017), Judge Andrews granted one, and denied two, pretrial motions in limine brought by the defendants and denied another filed by the plaintiffs. The Court granted the defendants’ motion in limine prohibiting the plaintiffs’ expert from testifying to commercial success…

In Robert Bosch LLC v. Alberee Products, Inc., C.A. No. 12-574-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2017), Chief Judge Stark denied defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s (“Costco”) motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2), but granted Costco alternative relief by way of attorneys’ fees, additional discovery and evidentiary relief. In opposition to Costco’s motion, Robert…

In W.L. Gore & Associates Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., C.A. No. 11-515-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 8, 2017), Chief Judge Stark granted in part the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The plaintiff filed the motion for sanctions after, on the morning of…

In a rare order on the sufficiency of contentions, Chief Judge Stark denied the defendant’s motion to compel supplemental infringement contentions. In Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., C.A. No. 16-246-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2017), defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) claimed that the plaintiffs’ contentions failed to describe how its ANDA…

In Sanofi v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA, C.A. No. 15-415-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2017), Judge Andrews denied defendant Sandoz Inc.’s (“Sandoz”) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s ANDA infringement action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The motion arose from Sandoz’s filing of a Paragraph IV certification, which it later, during expert discovery, changed to a…

This publication contains recent court decisions affecting Delaware corporations and other business entities, as well as the 2016 amendments to Delaware’s corporate and alternative entity law.