W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. C.R. Bard, Part One: Chief Judge Stark Rules on Motions in Limine and Pretrial Order Disputes
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…
Judge Robinson Rules on Motions in Limine
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…
W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. C.R. Bard, Part Two: Chief Judge Stark Rules on Daubert and Summary Judgment Issues
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…
Magistrate Judge Thynge Grants Google’s Motion for Summary Judgement of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. 101
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…
Judge Andrews Dismisses Contributory Infringement and Accelerates Infringement Contentions
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…
Chief Judge Stark Requires More than “Plain and Ordinary” Claim Constructions
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…
An Evidence-Based Objection to Retributive Justice
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,…
Product Liability Desk Reference, Daller, ed., Delaware chapter
The Product Liability Desk Reference, 2016 Edition is a comprehensive resource that provides the most recent statutory and case law developments on product liability laws for each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.…
Lobbying, PACs and Campaign Finance: 50 State Handbook, 2016 ed., Delaware chapter
Lobbying, PACs and Campaign Finance: 50 State Handbook provides quick access to the regulations and laws covering campaign contributions and proper contact with elected officials in each of the 50 states and the federal government. Each state and the federal government has its own chapter and includes: Detailed coverage of prohibited lobbying practices, enforcement, and…
Co-author with William J. Wade, “The Effect of the Appellate Court Decision,” Third Circuit Appellate Practice Manual (3d ed.)