This update provides short updates on judicial decisions, trends, and notable events in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, traditionally one of the three busiest jurisdictions for intellectual property litigation.

In AstraZeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 14-664-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 15, 2016), Judge Sleet denied defendants Wockhardt BIO AG and Wockhardt USA LLC’s (collectively “Wockhardt”) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the motion to dismiss, Wockhardt noted that it had amended the certification included in its ANDA…

In Integra LifeSciences Corp. et al., v. HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc., C.A. No. 15-819-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2016), Magistrate Judge Burke imposed deadlines on both parties to narrow their respective lists of asserted claims and invalidity references. On the same day he entered the scheduling order, Judge Burke entered an order requiring the plaintiffs to…

In JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. Fluidmesh Networks, LLC, C.A. No. 16-212-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016), Judge Sleet denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding insufficient evidence to invalidate the four patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Noting that the defendant had argued that one claim was representative of all of the asserted…

In Impax Laboratories Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., C.A. No. 14-984-RGA (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016), Judge Andrews ruled on Lannett Holdings Inc.’s motion to preclude Impax Laboratories Inc.’s expert, Dr. Rapoport, from testifying at trial. Lannett moved to exclude Dr. Rapoport’s expert testimony on secondary considerations on five grounds: (1) Dr. Rapoport was unqualified to…

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp., et al., C.A. No. 13-453-SLR (D. Del. Sept. 7, 2016), Judge Robinson granted the defendants’ motion to amend their answers and counterclaims to include a defense of improper inventorship of the patent-in-suit. The litigation arose from a patent issued to the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest. The subject of the motion…

In ART+COM InnovationPool GMBH v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 14-217-TBD (D. Del. Sept. 9, 2016), Federal Circuit Judge Dyk, sitting by designation, denied the plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. This motion arose following a jury verdict that Google did not infringe any of the asserted claims of the patent in-suit. In support of its motion,…

Recent amendments to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, effective August 1, 2016, provide for the ability to opt out of separate legal entity status. [Read our July 2016 update HERE] Some practitioners have expressed concern that by opting out of separate legal entity status, a Delaware statutory trust might not qualify as a “person” who can…

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., C.A. No. 13-474-SLR/SRF (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2016), Judge Robinson issued an order in response to the parties’ ongoing dispute about documents held by Ricoh’s Japanese parent company and on cross-motions for summary judgment. Intellectual Ventures had tried—unsuccessfully—to collect the parent company’s documents; first, by asking that…

In Masimo Corp. v. Phillips North America Electronics Corp., et al., C.A. Nos. 09-80 and 11-742 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016), Chief Judge Stark denied both parties’ motions to strike various expert reports. First, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of the defendants’ reply expert report. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had…