In Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. TC Heartland, LLC d/b/a Heartland Food Products Group, et al., C.A. No. 14-28-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 12, 2017), Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark ruled on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to invalidity, as well as their uncontested motion for summary judgment for failure to mark. Defendants argued that two patents-in-suit (the ’557 and ’472 patents) were invalid as obvious, and also that the ’557 patent was invalid as under Section 112’s written description and enablement requirements and because it violated the statutory prohibition against double-patenting.
As to obviousness, the Court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to both patents, and denied summary judgment. See id. at 3, 5-6. Similarly, as to written description and enablement arguments on the ’557 patent, genuine disputes of material fact existed here, and the Court denied summary judgment. See id. at 4. The Court also disagreed with Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants waived a non-enablement defense because they had not been raised in invalidity contentions and expert reports, but permitted Plaintiff to propose a schedule for taking “additional, limited discovery” into that defense if needed. Id. at 3 n.3.
As to statutory double patenting, Defendants argued that “the April 2010 provisional applications, whose contents were fully incorporated in another [Plaintiff] patent, are invalidating prior art under § 102(e). In response, [Plaintiff] accuse[d] [Defendants] of impermissibly ‘cloak[ing]’ an undisclosed anticipation defense under the guise of double patenting.” Id. at 4. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that Defendants had not “articulated either the type of double-patenting it alleges or how the law applies to the facts of this case.” Id. To the extent Defendants advocated a “a species-genus anticipation defense, the record . . . would support a reasonable finding that there is not clear and convincing evidence of invalidity.” Id. at 5. Furthermore, the Court was not persuaded by Defendants that the filing of a terminal disclaimer was irrelevant to this question. Id.
In the same opinion, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to pre-suit damages, based on Plaintiff’s failure to mark its products, which was uncontested by Plaintiff. Id. at 6.