Judge Andrews recently considered several motions in limine in advance of trial in Interdigital Communications, Inc., et al. v. Nokia Corp., et al., C.A. No. 13-10-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2014). Of note, the Court explained that evidence relating to inventors’ alleged dishonesty before the PTO would be inadmissible during the jury trial, under Rule 403, except to the extent it arose in cross-examination to challenge inventors’ credibility pursuant to Rule 608(b), or potentially as it related to an obviousness inquiry. In the latter case, the Court ordered that the defendants must disclose how they intended to use such evidence in connection with obviousness before trial. The Court also precluded the defendants from referring to the plaintiff as a “troll, non-practicing entity (NPE), patent assertion entity, or extortionist.” The Court also excluded evidence of a rejected IPR petition, explaining that “[a] PTO non-merits decision not involving Defendants has little or no probative value, and would require a lot of explanation for the jury to be able to understand. … [any] minimal probative value … would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the Defendants, and the risk of jury confusion from the complexity added by such testimony.”
Following her decision last summer granting Butamax’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of certain patent claims in its ongoing litigation with Gevo, Judge Robinson recently considered Butamax’s request for a Section 285 exceptional case determination and award of attorneys fees. Applying the guidance set out in Octane Fitness, Judge Robinson found that this was not an exceptional case. Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC, et al., C.A. No. 13-576-SLR, Memo. at 2-4 (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2014).
Butamax characterized the claims resolved by summary judgment as a “scenario where a plaintiff is offered the opportunity to investigate and verify facts before filing an infringement action, and instead refuses that offer and immediately files a baseless suit, and loses on summary judgment.” Id. at 3. Judge Robinson explained, however, that the “parties at bar are involved in a race to develop a commercial isobutanol recovery process, a complex and unpredictable technology” and that “Gevo’s scepticism of Butamax’s representations regarding non-infringement and its research and commercialization plans” was therefore justifiable. Id. Accordingly, “Gevo’s conduct in the case at bar was not unreasonable, nor is there evidence of ‘subjective bad faith.’” Id. at 4.
In a recent order, Judge Sue L. Robinson ruled on several issues following the parties’ pretrial conference. Carrier Corp. v. Goodman Global, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12-930-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2014). First, Judge Robinson denied defendants’ expert’s proffer related to anticipation, where the expert’s report merely referenced a series of claims charts “which were never explained or even specifically endorsed by the expert.” Judge Robinson concluded that defendants should not be permitted “to assert essentially new opinions through [their] expert declaration submitted in connection with [their] proffer of anticipation.” Id. at 2.
Second, Judge Robinson considered whether to admit as evidence opinions of counsel and reexamination proceedings that post-dated the alleged period of induced infringement, which was alleged to be between November 2009 and September 2012. See id. at 2-4. Judge Robinson found that the “request for reexamination,” which was filed in September 2012 following a prior art search, was “circumstantial evidence of [defendants’] intent during the relevant time.” Id. at 3. Judge Robinson would allow such evidence to be admitted, but would provide a limiting instruction for the jury and restrict the scope of examination. Id. On the other hand, Judge Robinson found that defendants failed to establish a “sufficient nexus between the August 2013 opinions of counsel and [defendants’] intent in September 2012.” Id. at 3-4. Noting that such evidence would present “an even greater risk of undue prejudice,” defendants would not be permitted to introduce that evidence at trial.
Third, Judge Robinson found that defendants failed to “timely identify, for purposes of full and fair discovery, its contention that it never sells its components as a ‘system’” and was therefore precluded from presenting such a defense. Id. at 4. Fourth, defendants had argued that there remained an issue of fact for the jury to determine, namely, whether a particular limitation “would be understood with reasonable certainty by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Judge Robinson explained, however, that the Court had already rejected defendants’ indefiniteness argument with respect to the limitation and provided a construction for the term. Id. Given that it is the Court’s responsibility to “construe claim language consistent with the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art,” Judge Robinson rejected defendants’ argument. Id.
In Interdigital Communication v. ZTE Corp., C.A. Nos. 13-009, 13-10-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2014), Judge Richard G. Andrews ruled on several motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff and defendants. First, Judge Andrews addressed plaintiff’s motions that an asserted patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and that the asserted claims of certain asserted patents were not invalid as anticipated, obvious, or for lack of enablement and written description. Id. at 3-6. Judge Andrews granted plaintiff’s motion regarding enablement, explaining that to demonstrate a lack of enablement, it is “necessary to show that one cannot practice the invention without undue experimentation,” and that defendants failed to “raise any evidence in their briefing” regarding undue experimentation. Id. at 5-6. Judge Andrews also granted plaintiff’s inequitable conduct summary judgment motion in part, explaining that while “there [was] a sufficient factual dispute as to the Siemens 004 reference,” the defendants did “not address the other five references.” Id. at 4. Accordingly, Judge Andrews found that defendants “waived their defense of inequitable conduct” as to those five references. Id. Judge Andrews denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description. Id. at 3-6. Judge Andrews also denied plaintiff’s Daubert motion. Id. at 8. Defendants had also filed summary judgment motions addressing various non-infringement and anticipation arguments. Id. at 6-7. Judge Andrews found a genuine issue of material fact to exist with respect to each of these issues and thus denied defendants’ motions. Id.
Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered GeoTag, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Microsoft and Google’s (“Plaintiffs”) amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Microsoft Corp. et al. v GeoTag, Inc., C.A. No. 11-175-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2014). Judge Andrews considered an earlier motion on similar grounds but gave Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. GeoTag renewed its motion in opposition to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Id. at 1. This declaratory judgment action was filed by Plaintiffs in response to GeoTag’s suits filed in the Eastern District of Texas against Plaintiffs’ customers. Plaintiffs argued that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction because “‘GeoTag’s Texas lawsuits implied an assertion of both indirect and direct infringement against Google and Microsoft, and a live controversy therefore existed as to the Google and Microsoft products accused by GeoTag’s Texas lawsuits against their customers.'” Id. at 2. Under MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), this implied assertion of infringement “created a justiciable dispute.” Id. at 3.
GeoTag disputed “Plaintiffs’ implied assertion of direct infringement,” arguing that it “‘would mean that the patentee made incorrect allegations of direct infringement against a customer that, unbeknownst to the patentee, would constitute implied assertions of direct infringement against the supplier.'” Id. Judge Andrew disagreed because, under 35 U.S.C. § 271, a customer and vendor can both directly infringe a patent based on the same conduct. Id. 3-4. Judge Andrews determined that subject matter jurisdiction was present because an express accusation need not occur, only whether there was “‘a reasonable potential that such a claim could be brought.'” Id. at 4. (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc., 755 F.3d 899, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Because “reasonable potential” existed, Judge Andrews denied GeoTag’s motion as to direct infringement. Judge Andrews also determined that subject matter jurisdiction existed based upon an implied assumption of induced infringement because, despite being aware of allegations against its customers, Google provided articles to customers on how to create store locators. Id. at 5. In Judge Andrews view, Plaintiffs’ actions “established a ‘reasonable potential’ GeoTag could have brought induced infringement claims.” Id.
Judge Richard G. Andrews recently issued a post-trial opinion in Novartis’s suit over the generic version of its Exelon® transdermal patch. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-1077-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2014). Novartis alleged that Par’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for a “rivastigmine transdermal system” infringed its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,335,031 and 6,316,023. Id. at 1. After a two-day bench trial the Court determined that Novartis failed to prove that Par’s ANDA infringed the patents-in-suit. Id. at 2. Because defendant’s counterclaim of invalidity was “based upon a finding of infringement,” the Court did not reach the issue of invalidity. Id. at 2 n.5.
Click through to read the Novartis opinion.
Following a two day bench trial in Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. et al., C.A. Nos. 13-925, 13-1015-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 25, 2014), Judge Richard G. Andrews found that plaintiff failed to prove that defendants’ ANDA products infringe claims 1, 16, 36, an 37 of the patents-in-suit. Defendants certified that the only differences between plaintiff’s brand drug, Diprivan, and defendants’ ANDA products are the “antimicrobial agents” (i.e., “the preservatives”). Id. at 3. Additionally, plaintiff conceded that “there is no literal infringement, but claim[ed] that Defendants ANDA products infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. While plaintiff argued that “dipropofol” was the equivalent, Judge Andrews concluded that dipropofol was not actually the preservative in defendants’ ANDA products. Id. at 6-8. To this end, Judge Andrews noted that while plaintiff “was not under an obligation to prove that the ANDA products contained dipropofol, it would have been probative of whether the identified preservatives were responsible for antimicrobial activity.” Id. at 8 n.3. Judge Andrews also concluded that dipropofol does not function in substantially the same way as edetate, the preservative appearing in the asserted claims, and thus concluded that defendants’ ANDA products do not infringe. Id. at 8-11.
In Art+Com Innovationpool GmbH v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 14-217-RGA (D. Del.), Judge Richard G. Andrews had previously denied plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to defendant’s laches defense. D.I. 33. The Court now denied plaintiff’s motion to certify the case for interlocutory appeal. Slip Op. (Aug. 26, 2014).
The Court explained that, even if the Federal Circuit accepted the Court’s certification (which was “seriously doubt[ful]”), the Court’s decision would either be affirmed or, if reversed, “the case would continue with only 91% of the asserted defenses.” Id. at 1. Therefore, the Court did not find the disputed issue “a controlling question of law,” nor would interlocutory appeal “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Id.
Judge Richard G. Andrews recently considered defendants’ motion requesting the Court find certain terms of the patents-in-suit indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. IpLearn, LLC v. Blackboard, Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 11-876-RGA, 11-1026-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2014). Defendants argued that the claim terms at issue (“the user” and ” [considers/considering] at least a preference of the learner, other than the fact that the learner might prefer to learn the subject”) were indefinite under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014), because they did not provide “reasonable certainty” as to the scope of the invention. Id. at 2. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that the claim terms as construed by the Court were clear, and that the defendants’ did not meet their burden to present evidence to the Court “indicating whether a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the drafting of the claim would have reasonable certainty as to what the inventor claimed.” Id. Judge Andrews agreed:
This lack of evidence was highlighted at oral argument when the Defendants were asked on several occasions what evidence they had regarding a POSITA’s understanding of the claim, and on each occasion failed to directly address the Court’s question. In fact, in one of the rare instances where Counsel did provide the Court with citations to the record, the citations did not provide the evidence the Court was asking for. For example, when asked by the Court if a POSITA would understand the claim, Plaintiffs counsel directed the Court’s attention to page 5 of their July 3rd, 2014 reply brief. However, when the Court examined that page, along with the reference to paragraph 172 of Dr. Kris Jamsa’s report, neither made any reference to a POSITA. Dr. Jamsa knew what a POSITA was. Dr. Jamsa referred to a POSITA in making other invalidity arguments. Thus, he knew how to refer to a POSITA when he thought it appropriate to do so.
Id. at 3.
Judge Sue L. Robinson recently construed the following claim terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,037,319 titled “Water-soluble packets containing liquid cleaning concentrates”:
“[L]ess than 7.5 wt.% water”1 and “[less than 5.0 wt.% water]”
“Liquid cleaning concentrate”
“a polyvinyl alcohol film”