Judge Robinson Denies Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
In Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Mylan Inc., et al., C.A. No. 15-960-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2016), Judge Robinson denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals (“MPI”) and Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (“MLL”) and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice for improper venue and failure to…
Judge Andrews Dismisses Request for Attorneys’ Fees Without Prejudice
In Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12-1013-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2016), Judge Andrews dismissed without prejudice the defendants’ motion to declare the case exceptional and extended the deadline for the defendants to file a renewed motion to 30 days from the Federal Circuit’s decision on the pending…
Chief Judge Stark Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions
In W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. C.R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., C.A No. 11-515 (D. Del. July 27, 2016), Chief Judge Stark denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against the defendants. In its motion, the plaintiff alleged that, on the morning of trial, the defendants contended that they had recently found a…
Judge Andrews Denies Motions to Exclude Expert Witnesses in a Bench Trial
In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. & Novartis AG v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 14-1043, 14-1196, and 14-1289 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2016), Judge Andrews denied the parties’ motions to exclude each other’s expert witnesses. Noting that a judge’s role as a “gatekeeper” is not as critical in a bench trial, Judge Andrews found that…
Chief Judge Stark Denies Parties’ Motions to Strike Expert Reports
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…
Judge Robinson Denies Summary Judgment but Grants Adverse Inference Regarding Infringement
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…
Chief Judge Stark Issues Post-Trial ANDA Decision
In UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1206-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2016), Chief Judge Stark issued a post-trial decision following an ANDA trial held in December 2015. The Court began its 96-page opinion setting forth 54 pages of findings of fact. The Court noted that Accord Healthcare, Inc. had stipulated to infringement and…
Chief Judge Stark Clarifies His Order Granting Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
In Cronos Technologies LLC v. Expedia Inc., C.A. No. 13-1538-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016), Chief Judge Stark clarified the reasoning for his order granting Expedia’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The Court initially granted the motion for summary judgment on July 22, 2016, following briefing, oral argument, and supplemental briefing addressing claim construction. In…
Judge Andrews Grants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Section 101
In Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al., C.A. Nos. 14-006 and 14-1212 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016), Judge Andrews granted in part the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding four of the five patents-in-suit ineligible and dismissing as moot the fifth patent due to…
Judge Sleet Notes Challenges in Trying Antitrust and Patent Claims Together
In Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Ethical Coffee Company SA, C.A. No. 16-194-GMS (D. Del. July 20, 2016), Judge Sleet, during a scheduling conference, highlighted the challenges involved in trying antitrust claims with patent claims. The defendant, Ethical Coffee Company SA, joined by counterclaim-plaintiff Ethical Coffee Corporation, argued that because the antitrust issues were tied to the…