Delaware IP Law Blog

District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. recently issued a claim construction decision notable for its refusal to construe several claim terms. In the underlying dispute over a liquid-crystal display patent, the parties requested construction of the terms "display apparatus" and, in relevant part, "providing a predetermined variation with viewing angle of light transmission." Citing a variety of infirmities, the Court declined to construe the terms.

According to the Court, the "display apparatus" term appears only in the preamble, and thus cannot constitute a limitation:

"[T]he terse preamble simply refers to a 'display apparatus,' which, in the Court's view, is nothing more than a statement of the general field of the claim. Indeed, the word 'display' is not relied upon later in the claim to describe the details of the invention, which, in and of itself, provides further corroboration for the Court's conclusion that the preamble is not a limitation."

The "predetermined variation" phrase suffered a similar fate, but for opposite reasons: rather than lacking sufficient explanation in the specification, as above, the phrase instead had sufficient explanatory support to refute defendants' proposed construction:

"Pairing a description of a specific, concrete use of the invention with a generalized description of the invention, the specification thus uses an example in the usual way to clarify the broader concept. . . . [T]his language, rather than being dispensable boilerplate, represents the standard mode of using an example to convey an idea. The Court will not punish the patentees for attempting to make their specification more accessible in this manner."

Because plaintiff's proposed construction altered the claim language "only slightly," the Court declined to construe the claim phrase.

Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Nikon Corp., C.A. No. 04-1337-JJF (D. Del. Dec. 9, 2008) (Farnan, J.).

On December 5, 2008, a Delaware jury returned a non-infringement verdict for the defendant in the Honeywell International Inc. v. Sandel Avionics Inc. matter before Magistrate Judge Thynge. The jury found that Honeywell did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sandel's product infringed either U.S. Patent No. 5,839,080 or U.S. Patent No. 6,122,570. A copy of the public verdict form is provided below.

Honeywell Verdict Form

Judge Robinson recently denied Girafa.com, Inc.'s motion for a preliminary injunction in its patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. and other web services for their alleged use of "thumbnail" technology in violation of Girafa's patent. Girafa.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 07-787-SLR, Memo. Order (D. Del. Dec. 9, 2008). The Court declined to adopt any of plaintiff's proposed claim constructions at this informal stage and therefore found that plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 9. In addition, the Court found that plaintiff would not suffer irreparable harm because they could not demonstrate that the loss of business was a direct result of defendants' competitive conduct. Id. at 9. Finally, the accused defendants that were part of the preliminary injunction motion began using the technology almost 2 years before Girafa filed its motion. The Court found that this delay, though not dispositve, was evidence that could be weighed in evaluating the harm to the parties. Id. at 9.

Girafa.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 07-787-SLR, Memo. Order (D. Del. Dec. 9, 2008).

Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge recently issued a Markman opinion in the matter Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 06-491-MPT, Memo. Order (D. Del. Dec. 5, 2008). The construed claims include:

(1) "metadata"
(2) "providing customer data storing information for a customer;" "providing information provider data storing information for an information provider"
(3) "metadata associating said customer data with said transaction"; "metadata associating said information with said transaction"
(4) "processing said metadata associating said customer data so as to complete the purchase transaction"
(5) "information provider"
(6) "information consumer"
(7) "control structure"
(8) "processing of said control structure"
(9) "feedback information"
(10) "processing said metadata to execute instructions external to said control structure"
(11) "storage menas for storing"
(12) "association means for creating metadata associating portions of said information and defining a control structure for processing at least at said consumer memory to associate with said metadata processes for controlling the communication of said information, said metadata including data exchange metadata associating a process for controlling the transfer of feedback information, said feedback information including at least a portion of said consumer information, to said provider"
(13) "transfer means for transferring said information, including said metadata defining said control structure from said provider memory to said consumer memory"
(14) "feedback transfer means for transferring said feedback information from said consumer memory to said provider memory"
(15) "processing means for executing instructions external to said control structure to perform said processes to control communication of said information"
(16) "directly modify the user's own respective personal data record within the database"
(17) "virtual personal address book"
(18) "directly view the data records."

Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 06-491-MPT, Memo. Order (D. Del. Dec. 5, 2008)

11/19: Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (patent infringement)
11/19: Eli Lilly and Company, Trustees of Princeton University v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. (patent infringement)
11/20: Tac-Fast Systems, Inc. and Tac-Fast Georgia, LLC v. Metroflor Corp. (patent infringement)
11/21: Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp., et al. (patent infringement)
11/21: Capricorn Pharma, Inc. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and Zicam, LLC (patent and trademark infringement)
11/21: SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG v. Security Weaver LLC (trademark infringement)
11/21: Somerset Dental Products, Inc. v. Benco Dental Supply Co. and Indigodental GMBH & Co. KG (patent infringement)
11/24: ING Direct Bancorp and ING Bank, fsb (ING Direct) v. Discover Financial Services and Discover Bank (trademark infringement)
11/25: Cima Labs, Inc., Azur Pharma, Ltd. and Azur Pharma Internaional III, Ltd. v. Novel Laboratories (patent infringement)
11/25: Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Austria AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. and Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. (patent infringement)
11/25: Integrated Discrete Devices, LLC v. Diodes Incorporated (patent infringement)
11/25: Eurand, Inc., Cephalon, Inc. and Anesta AG v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Barr Laboratories (patent infringement)
11/26: Widex A/S v. Vivatone Hearing Systems, LLC (patent infringement)
12/4: Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and CPEX Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (patent infringement)
12/5: CNS, Inc., d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline v. Raritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (patent infringement)
12/8: ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc. and ITT Corporation v. International Technology Transfer, Inc., d/b/a ITT Licensing and ITT Licensing.com (trademark infringement)
12/8: Orion Corporation v. Wockhardt USA, Inc. a/k/a Wockhardt USA LLC and Wockhardt Limited (patent infringement)
12/8: Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Source, Inc. (patent infringement)
12/9: Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Kyocera Sanyo Telecom, Inc. (patent infringement)
12/9: Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. General Imaging Co. (patent infringement)
12/10: Interpharm Holdings, Inc. and Interpharm, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC (trademark infringement)
12/11: Phonak AG v. Vivatone Hearing Systems, LLC (patent infringement)
12/12: MagSil Corporation and MIT v. Seagate Technology, Seagate US, LLC, Seagate Technology LLC, Maxtor Corporation, Western Digital Corp., Western Digital Technologies, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., Hitachie America, Ltd., Hitachi Data Systems Corp., Toshiba America Inc., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., ExcelStor Technology, Inc., TDK USA Corp., TDK Corporation of America and Headway Technology, Inc. (patent infringement)
12/16: CNH America LLC and Blue Leaf I.P., Inc. v. Jon E. Kinzenbaw and Kinze Manufacturing, Inc. (patent infringement)
12/17: Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Warner Lambert Co., Warner Lambert Co., LLC v. Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp. (patent infringement)

Several claim construction decisions have recently issued out of the District of Delaware:

Symbol Technologies Inc. v. Janam Technologies Inc., C.A. No. 08-340-JJF/LPS (D. Del. Dec. 1, 2008) (Stark, M.J.)

On Monday, Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark recommended to District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. construction of a number of terms and phrases related to a mobile-computer patent:

"a portable point of sale terminal"
"electromagnetic transceiver"
"power"
"without installing new software on the wireless terminal"

The procedural posture is notable: the Court construed the terms only tentatively, giving the parties guidance in preparation for an upcoming preliminary injunction hearing.

Purdue Pharma Products LP v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., C.A. No. 07-255-KAJ (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2008) (Jordan, J.) (Part I) (Part II)

Last month, a claim construction decision issued in an ANDA case related to pain medication. The Court construed the following terms:

"therapeutic effect"
"A [solid] controlled release oral [dosage form/pharmaceutical preparation/pharmaceutical tablet] . . . said [dosage form/pharmaceutical preparation/pharmaceutical tablet] providing a therapeutic effect for [at least] about 24 hours"
"therapeutic effect for about 24 hours after oral administration"
"therapeutic effect for at least about 24 hours"
"a pharmaceutically effective amount of tramadol or a salt thereof"
"matrix"
"normal release matrix"

Of additional interest is the decision's author: Third Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan, formerly of the District of Delaware. Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica has designated Judge Jordan to preside over this case.

In a recent decision addressing a licensee's right to a jury trial, District of Delaware Judge Sue L. Robinson granted a patentholder's motion to strike a jury demand. The underlying complaint sought a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity. In lieu of damages, the parties agreed beforehand that the corpus of an earlier escrow agreement would be distributed according to the resolution of the litigation.

This arrangement, according to the Court, did not constitute a "money demand" sufficient to support a jury trial:

"[The escrow agreement] provides that when this action is concluded, Medtronic will cause distribution of the total amount in the [escrow account] . . . . If Medtronic wins, it can recover the portion of the escrow corresponding to non-infringing products. If MFV wins, Medtronic must continue to pay royalties. No damages are contemplated."

For purposes of the Seventh Amendment jury trial right, the Court made a distinction between a monetary demand and the simple receipt of funds stemming from litigation: "The fact that, if it is successful, Medtronic may ultimately get money . . . does not render Medtronic's claims 'legal' by their nature."

In an IP landscape dominated by license agreements, this decision helps settle the boundaries of the Seventh Amendment in patent litigation.

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al., C.A. No. 07-823-SLR/LPS (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2008) (Robinson, J.).

Faced with proceeding on a lone state-law unfair competition counterclaim, Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet has sua sponte dismissed the ancillary claim. After rejecting the underlying infringement counts in an earlier decision, the Court declined to hear the supplemental claim:

"[T]he Court finds that Banner's unfair competition claim lacks an independent jurisdictional basis. Further, although [Title 28] gives the court subject matter jurisdiction over an unfair competition claim when it is joined with a substantial and related patent law claim, the court finds persuasive authority that affords it discretion to dismiss supplemental claims when the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial."

This decision illustrates, as in other contexts, the emerging difficulty of pursuing state-law claims in patent cases.

Abbott Labs. v. Banner Pharmacaps Inc., C.A. No. 07-754-GMS (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2008) (Sleet, C.J.).

In the case of Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Zippertubing (Japan), Ltd., Magistrate Thynge construed the following claim terms found in five patents related to flame-retardant, electrically conductive materials:

(1) "which is not V-0 rated"
(2) "exterior surface"
(3) "thickness dimension"
(4) "coating at least a portion of the interior surface"
(5) "being/is effective to afford said gasket a flame class rating of V-0"
(6) "penetrating...such that the exterior surface remains electrically conductive"
(7) "between about 30-50% by weight"
(8) "at least about 30% by weight"
(9) "at least about 50% by dry weight"

Despite defendant's arguments that the claim terms describing the weights should be held indefinite, effectively arguing that summary judgment on indefininteness was appropriate at this stage of the litigation, the Court adopted the proposed construction proffered by the plaintiff, but implied that the defendant may be able to raise their indefiniteness argument again during the summary judgment phase of the case. Id.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Zippertubing (Japan), Ltd., C.A. No. 06-751-MPT, Memo. Order (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2008).

A defendant cannot complain to have a default judgment set aside where plaintiff would be prejudiced, there is no meritorious defense and their conduct in defaulting was culpable. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Citi Services, Inc., Citi Services, Ltd., Theochari and Smith, C.A. No. 99-543-GMS, Memorandum (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2008). In this case, plaintiff brought suit against the defendants for trademark and copyright infringement, unfair competition and dilution. Id. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and prior to the completion of briefing on that issue, defense counsel moved to withdraw. Id. at 2. The court granted the motion to withdraw and ordered the defendants to obtain new counsel and respond to outstanding discovery or expose themselves to the possibility of a default judgment being entered against them. Id. After multiple orders reminding the defendants of their obligation to respond and to attend a conference with the Court, the Court entered default judgment against all defendants including an award of monetary and injunctive damages to the plaintiff. Id. at 3. Over six years later, the individual defendants (Smith and Theochari) moved to set aside the default judgment and order.
The Court declined to set aside the judgment. In his decision, Judge Sleet found that lifting the default judgment would be extremely prejudicial to the plaintiff whose judgment would be at risk and would have to re-litigate its claims. Furthermore, the lapse of over six years would impact the evidence and witnesses available to plaintiff to prove their case and there may be additional issues regarding the statute of limitations among others. Id. at 5. The defendants failed to show a meritorious defense because the Court previously entered an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. at 6. Finally, defendants’ “repeated failure to respond to discovery request and the court’s order to secure new counsel” demonstrates their culpability. Id.

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Citi Services, Inc., Citi Services, Ltd., Theochari and Smith, C.A. No. 99-543-GMS, Memorandum (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2008).