In Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 13-1674-RGA (Cons.) (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2015), Judge Andrews denied a motion in limine by Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”) to preclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony on the doctrine of equivalents, which was raised in plaintiffs’ opening expert report in a one-sentence conclusory…

On December 10, 2015, in Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 14-1115-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2015), Chief Judge Stark issued an oral order requiring that plaintiff supplement its claim construction briefing by submitting “proposed constructions (i.e., not merely an unspecified ‘plain and ordinary meaning’) for each of the disputed claim terms for…

In this edition of the electronic Richards, Layton & Finger Patent Law Update, we discuss decisions and hearings of note from the District of Delaware from the past few weeks. If you have any questions about any of the decisions listed below or the District of Delaware in general, please let us know.

On November 24, 2015, Chief Judge Stark addressed six motions in limine and various disputes raised in the pretrial order in W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-515-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 24, 2015). Among Chief Judge Stark’s various rulings, the Court held that evidence of the European Patent Office’s…

In Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 13-1524-SLR, 13-1279-SLR, 14-268-SLR (D. Del. Nov. 24, 2015), Judge Robinson granted two pretrial motions in limine brought by plaintiff to exclude testimony of defendants’ experts and denied a motion in limine to exclude one of plaintiff’s infringement theories. Defendant Amneal…

On December 2, 2015, Chief Judge Stark issued an order on a number of related motions, further narrowing the parties’ issues for trial in W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-515-LPS. First, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to strike the supplemental expert…

In Collarity, Inc. v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 11-1103-MPT (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2015), Magistrate Judge Thynge granted Google Inc.’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, concluding that plaintiff’s asserted claims were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. Despite plaintiff’s argument…

In Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. v. LG Electronics, Inc., C.A. No. 15-691-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 3, 2015), Magistrate Judge Burke continued the Court’s trend of declining to grant stays pending inter partes review (“IPR”) until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) determined whether to initiate IPR proceedings. First, Judge Burke stated that, as…

In Tailstream Technologies LLC v. TeraRecon Inc., C.A. No. 15-625-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2015), Judge Andrews determined that concerns over the sufficiency of plaintiff’s induced infringement claims would be remedied by the proposed “supplemental” complaint. However, neither the original complaint nor the proposed supplemental complaint sufficiently alleged contributory infringement; as such, the “boilerplate” contributory…

Advancements in neuroscience and related fields are beginning to show, with increasing clarity, that certain human behaviors stem from uncontrolled, mechanistic causes. These discoveries beg the question: If a given behavior results from some combination of biological predispositions, neurological circumstances, and environmental influences, is that action unwilled and therefore absolved of all attributions of credit, blame,…