Upon motion for clarification of the Court’s June 22, 2012 claim construction opinion, Judge Andrews recently issued revised constructions of two terms of the patents in suit. United Video Properties, Inc., et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-003-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 14, 2012). Judge Andrews revised its constructions of the terms “electronic television program guide” and “interactive program guide” in order to make clear that the terms “require the respective applications to provide current and forward-looking program schedule and channel information — i.e., information concerning what programs are currently airing and when programs will air in the future, and on what channel.” Id. at 1. The Court also clarified that the term “displaying” as used in the ‘268 patent relates to “television and not other forms of ‘overlaying’ on a screen such as when a program ‘window’ on a computer screen is overlaid on top of a user’s desktop and other program windows.” Id. at 2.
Judge Stark recently engaged in extensive claim construction of disputed claim terms of four patents related to systems for protecting against computer viruses and spam emails. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Check Point Software Techs. Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 10-1067-LPS, Slip Op. (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2012). The terms the Court construed in this multi-defendant case were:
– “data file(s)”
– “determining . . . whether each received content identifier matches a characteristic of other identifiers”
– “file content identifier”/“file content ID”/“digital content identifier”/“digital content ID”
– “digital content identifier created using a mathematical algorithm unique to the message content”
– “file content identifier generator agent(s)”
– “an indication of the characteristic”/“identify the existence or absence of said characteristic”/“indicating the presence or absence of a characteristic”
– “characterizing the files on the server system based on said digital content identifiers received relative to other digital identifiers collected in the database”
– “database of business rules”/“business rules”
– “[combines/combining] the [email message/data object] with a new distribution list . . . and a rule history . . .”
– “an organizational hierarchy of a business, the hierarchy including a plurality of roles, each role associated with a user”
– “persistently storing,” “primary message store . . . for receiving an non-persistently storing e-mail messages,” and “secondary message store . . . for receiving therefrom, and persistently storing an e-mail message”
– “automatically reviewing the [email message/data object] after a specified time interval to determine an action to be applied”
– “rule engine”
– “routing a call between a calling party and a called party of a telephone network”
– “within the telephone network”
– “identification code”
– “converting . . . from an executable format to a non-executable format”
– “forwarding the non-executable format”
– “retains an appearance, human readability, and semantic content of the e-mail message”
– “deactivating the hypertext link”
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon recently recommended that the court grant defendant Staples, Inc.’s 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims made against it for indirect and willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,216,139. Execware, LLC v. Staples, Inc., C.A. No. 11-836-LPS-SRF (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2012).
Judge Fallon first addressed plaintiff’s indirect infringement claims, which included claims of induced and contributory infringement, and noted that in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must (1) “adequately plead a claim for direct infringement,” and (2) “plead sufficient facts . . . for the Court to infer that the defendants had knowledge of [the plaintiff’s] patents and that their products infringed on those patents.” Id. at 4-5 (quoting Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc., 2011 WL 43946581, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2011) (emphasis in original)). To adequately plead direct infringement, a plaintiff must provide the level of detail required by Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 4. Judge Fallon found that plaintiff failed to provide such detail. Id. at 7. Despite identifying Staples’ customers as the alleged direct infringers, the amended complaint did not “allege that Staples’ customers actually used the accused software, or that Staples caused its customers to directly infringe the ’139 patent.” Id. at 6-7. As a result, Judge Fallon recommended the dismissal of the plaintiff’s direct infringement claim. Id. at 6-8.
Judge Fallon further recommended that if the court did not adopt her recommendation regarding direct infringement, plaintiff’s indirect infringement claim should be “limited from the date of filing of the complaint.” Id. at 8. In reaching her recommendation, Judge Fallon relied on a line of District of Delaware rulings in concluding “that a plaintiff may plead actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit as of the filing of the initial complaint to state a cause of action limited to the defendant’s post-litigation conduct, and a defendant’s decision to continue its conduct despite knowledge gleaned from the complaint is sufficient to establish the intent element required to state a claim for indirect infringement.” Id. at 10 (citing Apeldyn Corp. v. Sony Corp., 852 F. Supp. 2d 568, 573-74 (D. Del. 2012); Walker Digital, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 559, 565-66 (D. Del. 2012)). Because the plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged that Staples had knowledge of the patent only after the filing of the complaint, Judge Fallon explained that the indirect infringement claims should be limited to activity after the filing date. Id.
Turning to the plaintiff’s wilfull infringement claim, Judge Fallon noted that in order to overcome a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead “facts giving rise to at least a showing of objective recklessness of the infringement risk.” Id. at 11 (quoting St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2012 WL 1134318, at *2-3 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2012)). Judge Fallon further noted that the “Federal Circuit has held that a patentee cannot recover enhanced damages based solely on the accused infringer’s post-filing conduct when the patentee has not sought a preliminary injunction.” Id. at 12. Because the plaintiff failed to plead that Staples had “pre-suit knowledge of the ‘139 patent,” Judge Fallon recommended that the court dismiss its wilfull infringement claim. Id. at 12-13.
Judge Richard G. Andrews recently construed two disputed claim terms of U.S. Patent No. 5,187,512, entitled “Film Cassette Containing Pre-Exposed Film,” relating to “apparatus and processes for pre-exposing only certain portions of the frames of a film strip before the strip is exposed in a camera.” Universal Innovations, LLC v. CS Industries, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-501-RGA, at 2 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2012). Judge Andrews construed the following means-plus-function terms:
“Means for defining (a) two film holding cavities and (b) an exposure frame opening located intermediate said cavities”
“Means for configuring said exposure frame opening such that the periphery of said opening corresponds with the periphery of said unexposed portion of said frame so as to prevent further exposure of said first latent image during the forming of a second latent image in the unexposed portion of said frame by image carrying light rays passing through said exposure frame opening during an exposure”
Id. at 3, 5.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of a plaintiff today, finding after a week long trial held before Judge Sue L. Robinson that Apple’s iPhone infringes three of the plaintiff’s patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,070,068; 6,253,075; and 6,427,078. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 10-258-SLR (D. Del. Dec. 14, 2012). The jury rejected Apple’s arguments that each of the three patents is invalid. A trial on damages has not yet been scheduled.
Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiff’s expert “from testifying about ‘written description’ and that ‘a solution is a solvate[,]’ . . . in advance of a bench trial in which the expert [was] going to testify in any event.” GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Anchen Pharms. Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-46-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2012). Judge Andrews noted that “live testimony and cross examination” would better able him to reach a “correct decision” on whether the expert’s testimony was appropriate. Id. Judge Andrews also added that defendants’ submission sounded “like cross-examination material[,]” and were he a “cynic” he would think that defendants filed their motion to ensure he was “paying attention when this cross-examination happens.” Id. n.1.
In a recent order, Judge Andrews granted two patent infringement declaratory judgment defendants’ motions to dismiss. See Sony Electronics Inc. v. Digitech Image Techs. LLC, C.A. No. 12-980-RGA, Order (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2012). Defendant Digitech originally filed an infringement action against Sony in the Central District of California. The California Court dismissed the suit because it joined several unrelated defendants in violation of the America Invents Act. Digitech refiled the suit against Sony alone on the same day the previous suit had been dismissed. Between the filing of the original suit and the refiled suit, however, Sony brought a declaratory judgment action against Digitech and its parent Acacia in the District of Delaware. Id. at 1-2.
Digitech argued that the original California suit was the “first-filed” suit and the “second-filed” Delaware suit should therefore be dismissed. Sony responded that the original California suit was “legally infirm” and should not be treated as the first-filed suit. Judge Andrews found that the original California suit had not been legally infirm, especially given that the original California suit had been permitted to proceed against the first-named defendant, while the suits against the other defendants were refiled. Accordingly, he granted Digitech’s motion to dismiss based on the first-filed status of the original California suit. Id. at 1-2.
Acacia argued that the declaratory judgment case against it should be dismissed because it did not own the patent-in-suit. Because Acacia could not bring suit on the patent, it argued, there could be no case or controversy between it and Sony. Citing Fina Research S.A. v. Baroid Drilling Fluids, Inc., 98 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Judge Andrews found this logic “compelling.” He rejected the argument that declaratory judgment jurisdiction existed because Acacia is a controlling parent of Digitech, who could and did bring a patent infringement suit, and pointed out that Acacia “presumably could not bring a counterclaim for patent infringement.” Judge Andrews therefore found the declaratory judgment suit against Acacia lacking in subject matter jurisdiction and granted Acacia’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 2-3.
In a recent memorandum opinion, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied a motion to dismiss filed by a sublicensee of the plaintiff’s soybean technology. Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC , C.A. No. 12-256-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2012). The sublicensee first argued that dismissal was appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) because the plaintiff failed to join a necessary and indispensable party – the plaintiff’s licensee who was permitted use of the technology for certain purposes not including commercialization, and who in turn sublicensed the use of the technology to the defendant who sought to commercialize the technology. Id. at 2-3, 4. The Court agreed that, at first glance, it appeared that the plaintiff’s licensee was an “absent party [who] will suffer some loss or be put at risk of suffering such loss if not joined.” Id. at 4-5 (quoting Koppers Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 158 F.3d 170, 175 (3d Cir. 1998)). The Court found, though, that the defendant’s interests were aligned with the plaintiff’s licensee such that it was “perfectly capable of protecting their joint interests.” Id. at 5-6. Moreover, because the agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s licensee included an arbitration provision, the Court found it unlikely that joining the plaintiff’s licensee would result in the Court ever ruling on the dispute between the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s licensee, anyway, which the Court found “mitigates the harm or risk of harm that would flow from [the plaintiff’s licensee’s] absence.” Id. at 6-7.
The Court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim because the defendant’s “actions in connection with the soybean technology are validly licensed, and therefore, it cannot infringe . . . .” Id. at 3. As the Court explained, “[t]his argument . . . asserts a factual defense. It is not an attack on the pleadings and is misplaced within the context of a 12(b)(6) motion.” Id.
In a recent memorandum order, Judge Sue L. Robinson granted patent infringement defendants Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings as to one claim of plaintiffs’ patent, and denied the motion as to other claims. See Senju Pharmaceutical Co., et al. v. Lupin Limited, et al., C.A. No. 11-271-SLR (consolidated), Slip Op. (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2012).
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ ANDA infringed two of their patents. Id. at 2. The parties had previously stipulated to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims related to one patent, and defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to certain claims of the remaining patent (“the ’045 patent”). The ’045 patent “is directed to aqueous liquid pharmaceutical compositions comprising gatifloxacin and disodium edtate [(“EDTA”)], as well as various methods utilizing these compositions.” Plaintiffs had previously filed a request for reexamination of various claims of the ’045 patent and amended their complaint to allege infringement—by two of defendants’ ANDA applications—of the ’045 patent as reexamined. Id. at 2-3. The reexamination had resulted in, inter alia, an amended claim 6 and the addition of claims 12-16. See U.S. Patent No. 6,333,045 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate.
In their motion, defendants alleged that the “narrower reexamined claims 6 and 12-16 of the ’045 patent are invalid for obviousness and that plaintiffs should be collaterally estopped from relitigating these claims based on this court’s findings in Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 404, 419-27 (D. Del. 2010).” Senju Pharma., Slip Op. at 5. In this prior decision (“Apotex”, discussed here), the Court had construed “the EDTA concentration limitation [in “original claim 6”] to be from 0.001 to 0.2 w/v%.” Id. at 5 (citing Apotex at 419 & n.26, 421-23). Plaintiffs countered that the “reexamined claims [had] not been previously litigated and decided, because this court did not consider or determine the validity of a claim limited to 0.01 w/v% [EDTA]” in Apotex. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Court accepted plaintiffs’ argument as to reexamined claims 6 and 12-16 after summarizing Apotex. Id. at 7. In Apotex it had held that “original claim 6 was obvious in light of the prior art as it ‘would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect that’” EDTA would be combined with gatifloxacin at the concentrations in original claim 6. Id. at 5-6 (quoting Apotex at 423). However, the Court now concluded that “[a]lthough in the ’045 patent the concentration of EDTA is limited to from 0.001 to 0.2 w/v%, this court did not specifically make findings for a claim with a limitation of 0.01 w/v% EDTA [in Apotex ] . . . . Moreover, plaintiffs did not fully litigate a claim with a limitation of 0.01 w/v% EDTA and [defendants have] not shown sufficient evidence that this limitation does not lend patentable significance to reexamined claims 6 and 12-16.” Id. at 7. In support of its conclusion, the Court cited 35 U.S.C. § 282 for the proposition that “a narrower claim is not rendered invalid by the invalidity of a broader claim.” Id. at 7 n.5. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to these reexamined claims.
The Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that its 2012 decision in the same Apotex case, discussed here, precluded the application of collateral estoppel, explaining that “[t]his court stated that claim preclusion applied to that case, not that issue preclusion could never apply.” Id. at 5 n.2.
Judge Leonard P. Stark recently issued a claim construction opinion construing disputed claim terms of U.S. Patent No. 5,610,059 entitled “Etiological Agent for Porcine Enteritis.” Intervet Inc. d/b/a Merck Animal Health, et al., v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., C.A. No. 11-595-LPS (D Del. Dec. 7, 2012). Judge Stark construed the following terms:
“a biologically pure culture of a mammalian host cell”
“an obligate intracellular bacterium that causes porcine proliferative enteritis after inoculation into pigs”
“Porcine Proliferative Enteritis”
“having all of the identifying characteristics of ATCC Accession No. 55370”