Judge Robinson Grants Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
In Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., C.A. No. 12-1138-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016), Judge Robinson granted the defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees but denied its motion for supplemental attorneys’ fees (including appeal-related fees), finding the case exceptional under Section 285. The plaintiff asserted claims against the defendant for direct…
Judge Sleet Rules on Post-Trial Motions and Allows “Legally Unsupportable” Verdict to Stand
In EMC Corporation v. Zerto, Inc., C.A. No. 12-956-GMS (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016), Judge Sleet denied all of the defendant’s post-trial motions, partially granted the plaintiff’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, denied the plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction, and partially granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment. The case…
Chief Judge Stark Permits Sur-Rebuttal Expert Report with Costs in Lieu of Striking Untimely Reports
In Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Company, C.A. No. 13-0843-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2016), Chief Judge Stark denied the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s untimely expert reports. The defendant moved to strike three of the plaintiff’s rebuttal reports because they were untimely (served two weeks after the set deadlines despite the defendant’s objection to…
Judge Andrews Grants in Part Motion to Compel Discovery
In Delaware Display Group LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., C.A. No. 13-2109-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2016), Judge Andrews granted the defendants’ motion to compel discovery in part, requiring that the plaintiff supplement its responses to two requests for production and produce “at least one piece of paper documenting the purchase of each of the 200…
Judge Sleet Construes Claims as Plain and Ordinary Meaning
In Ioengine, LLC v. Interactive Media Corp. d/b/a Kanguru Solutions et al., C.A. No. 14-1571-GMS, Judge Sleet construed all disputed terms of the patent-in-suit as having plain and ordinary meaning. In construing the last of four claim terms, the Court declined to “construe terms that are already evident from reading the entire claim.” The Court found…
Judge Andrews Limits Number of Custodians for Electronic Discovery
In Bradium Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, C.A. No. 15-031-RGA, Judge Andrews entered an electronic discovery order limiting the number of custodians and requiring the parties to serve separate requests for production directed to e-mail. First, the parties disagreed on the number of custodians that the parties should designate, with the plaintiff (Bradium) proposing ten custodians…
Judge Stark Grants Summary Judgment and Discovery Sanctions
In Robert Bosch LLC v. Alberee Products, Inc., C.A. No. 12-574-LPS, Chief Judge Stark granted the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) as to non-infringement of some of the patents-in-suit and stayed the case pending briefing on a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s (“Bosch”) complaint as a sanction for Bosch’s…
Judge Andrews Denies Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial Following Jury Verdict
In InterDigital Communications Inc. et al v. ZTE Corporation et al., C.A. No. 13-009-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2016), Judge Andrews denied the defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial with respect to patents ‘966 and ‘847. Judge Andrews alternatively postponed deciding the defendants’ motion…
Judge Sleet Denies Motion to Dismiss Citing Factual Dispute on Patent-Eligibility of Subject Matter
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 15-560-GMS (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2016), Judge Sleet denied the defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the patent infringement suit for failure to state a claim. After considering the defendants’ argument that the patent claimed ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §…
Delaware Intellectual Property Law Update
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.