In Somaxon Pharms., Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., C.A. No. 11-107-SLR (D. Del. July 28, 2011), defendant asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of the patent-in-suit and six unasserted patents covering the drug at issue. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs provided defendant with a covenant not to sue on the six unasserted patents and requested defendant to dismiss its counterclaims as to the unasserted patents. Id. Judge Robinson granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss. “[T]he covenants not to sue address the Unasserted Patents in their entirety. There is no case or controversy regarding those patents because the covenant not to sue removes the original subject matter jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 5.
In S.O.I.TEC Silicon on Insulator Technologies, S.A. v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., C.A. No. 08-292-SLR (D. Del. July 13, 2011), Judge Robinson decided several post-trial motions, including the defendant’s motion for reargument on inequitable conduct. Id. Although the defendant “was scheduled to present its inequitable conduct case to the court following the jury trial[,]” it “did not subpoena any witnesses to call at the bench trial[,]” claiming that its only two witnesses “were adverse and outside of the court’s subpoena power.” Id. at 10-11. Rather, the defendant “sought to proceed . . . by tendering a box of exhibits and an exhibit list to the court[.]” Id. at 11. The defendant “argued that the court’s holding on summary judgment was that [the defendant] had adduced facts from which an intent to deceive could be inferred . . . , and argues post-trial that the law of the case doctrine dictates that the court’s summary judgment holding should not have been disturbed.” Id. Judge Robinson rejected this argument for two reasons. First, “the court’s finding the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on intent is not akin to the court’s ruling in [the defendant’s] favor on that issue.” Id. Second, noting the Court’s long-standing guidelines regarding admission of documents and deposition excerpts, Judge Robinson stated that the Court “determined that judgment should be entered in favor of [the plaintiff] because [the defendant] could not move the entry of any evidence absent the aid of witnesses.” Id. at 11-12. In short, the defendant “did not seek to participate in a live trial, rather, it simply sought judgment on its proffered box of documents.” Id. at 12.
In In re Armodafinil Patent Litigation, C.A. No. 10-md-2200-GMS (D. Del. July 25, 2011), Judge Sleet recently construed the following six claim terms:
– “[a] laevorotatory enantiomer of modafinil in a polymorphic form that produces a powder X-ray diffraction spectrum comprising”
– “intensity peaks at the interplanar spacings”
– “reflections at”
– “[a] Form I polymorph of (-)- modafinil”
– “[a] pharmaceutical composition comprising”
– “[a] pharmaceutical composition consisting essentially of”
In Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc., C.A. No. 10-812-SLR (D. Del. July 12, 2011), Judge Robinson recently evaluated the sufficiency of plaintiff’s patent infringement claims under Twombly and Iqbal. Judge Robinson found that plaintiff’s direct infringement claims passed muster. Id. at 5. Plaintiff’s indirect infringement claims, however, did not fare as well. Plaintiff alleged that “users of defendants’ subscription units commit the requisite acts of direct infringement required for indirect infringement liability[,]” and that “defendants knew or should have known of the [patent-in-suit] before the infringing acts occurred because some of defendants entered into licensing agreements with a third party and obtained rights to two patents that cite the [patent-in-suit] as prior art[.]” Id. at 6. Judge Robinson found that plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to allow the court to infer that defendants had knowledge of the patent-in-suit, because “the link between the [patent-in-suit] and defendants involved in licensing agreements with a third party is too tenuous to sustain an allegation of knowledge.” Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff’s joint infringement claims failed because its complaint “did not provide specific facts explaining any alleged relationships among defendants,” or that “any defendant  exercise[ed] ‘control or direction’ over the allegedly infringing acts of other parties.” Id. at 12.
In Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., C.A. No. 11-082-LPS (D. Del. July 18, 2011), Judge Stark granted a rare motion to transfer venue. The deciding factor cited in the opinion is the fact that the judge at the alternative venue has “almost a decade of experience” with the patent at issue, including “four actions [involving] three claim construction orders, . . . fourteen summary judgment motions, . . . nine hearings, . . . twenty-five substantive orders, and . . . over 800 docket entries. [The judge] considers herself ‘a student of [the patent],’ being very familiar with the prosecution history, including the interference and reexamination record.” Id. at 18-19. Further, the judge has stated that she “is willing to preside over the instant actions, in addition to the related actions already pending before her.”
Along the way, the Court also addressed an argument that the lack of personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff in the proposed venue prevented transfer. The Court found that argument unpersuasive, because the plaintiff “would have conceded to personal jurisdiction . . . by filing suit there.” Id. 6-7.
On July 8, Chief Judge Sleet issued an order in Shelbyzyme LLC v. Genzyme Corp., C.A. No. 09-768 (GMS) (D. Del. July 8, 2011), construing the following terms:
- “‘glycosylated . . . a-galactosidase A”
- “‘recombinant’ . . . a-galactosidase A”
- “‘[a] method of treating a disease in a mammal resulting from deficiencies in a-galactosidase A”
- ”therapeutically effective amount”
- “therapeutic amount”
- “‘enzymatically-active’ a-galactosidase A”
- “unit of enzyme activity”
In LG Electronics USA, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., C.A. No. 08-234-GMS (July 1, 2011), Judge Sleet recently denied LG’s JMOL motion of obviousness and lack of written description because LG failed to preserve the issues by including them in a timely filed Rule 50(a) motion . Id. at 9. Judge Sleet did, however, grant LG’s motion for a new trial with respect to the sufficiency of the written description of Whirlpool’s ‘130 patent and obviousness of Whirlpool’s ‘601 patent. Id. at 22-23, 26-27. The court noted that LG’s “[f]iling a Rule 50(a) motion at the proper time would have allowed the court to more efficiently resolve the issue.”. Id. at 24, n.9; 26, n.11.
In Internet Media Corp. v. Hearst Newspapers, LLC, C.A. No. 10-690-SLR (D. Del. June 28, 2011), Judge Robinson denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit because the defendant’s argument would require construction of an asserted claim. Id. at 7. The defendant argued that the complaint should be dismissed because the asserted patent “is indefinite as a matter of law[.]” Id. at 4. “Specifically, defendant argues that claim one is a means-plus-function claim relating to the use of computers, thus requiring that the specification disclose an algorithm by which the computer performs the recited function.” Id. The “[d]efendant argues that the court need not construe the asserted claim and must simply look to the specification to see if an algorithm is disclosed.” Id. at 6. The court, however, found that “[s]ome degree of claim construction is necessary to determine if the apparent means-plus-function claim is actually a means-plus-function claim, or if the claim itself recites enough structure to overcome the presumption of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.” Id. at 7. Further, “the court would need to construe the claim in order to determine what algorithm to look for in the specification and what elements are necessary in said algorith to satisfy § 112 ¶ 6.” Id. Thus, because claim construction “is properly reserved for summary judgment[,]” Judge Robinson denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id.
In OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 09-185-SLR (D. Del. June 30, 2011), Judge Robinson recently issued an order enjoining an ANDA defendant “from launching its generic drug until the court’s decision issues” because the stipulated post-trial briefing schedule would exceed “what the court estimates to be the expiration of the 30-month stay invoked by operation of the filing of this lawsuit[.]” Id.
After a 3-day bench trial in an ANDA case, Judge Sleet recently found that defendant’s proposed product did not infringe plaintiffs’ patent. Astrazeneca LP v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., C.A. No. 08-453-GMS (D. Del. June 23, 2011). In the Memorandum, Judge Sleet warned future parties about the tone they take in submissions to the court. In its post-trial brief, Astrazeneca mocked Mylan’s expert for failing to produce evidence in support of an analogy comparing ethycellulose to pasta, criticizing the analogy as a ‘“creative explanation [that] was supported by no experimental results or scientific observations (from either the laboratory or the kitchen).”’ Id. at 11 n.8. (alteration in original). Mylan mocked Astrazeneca’s expert’s explanation of material he examined by stating in their reply brief ‘“In their excitement to hear that Dr. Davies found something in the bottom of his Petri dish . . .”’ Id.
Judge Sleet warned future parties “that such condescension is unbecoming an attorney appearing before a federal court, and is in no way constructive or beneficial to the court’s task of weighing the evidence presented at trial and reaching its findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id.