Trusted Knight Corporation v. International Business Machines Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 14-1063 – LPS-CJB, November 19, 2015.
Stark, C. J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding four terms from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on September 21, 2015
The disputed technology relates to computer malware. The following terms were considered:
- “clearing confidential data”
- “prevents any other hooks from inserting at the O-Ring level”
- “In response to the software key logging through the API stack to an internet communication port”
- “a process of passing the encrypted data to a 3-ring level where a hook inserted by a hook-based key logger”
Courtesy Products, L.L.C. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2012 – SLR, November 18, 2015.
Robinson, J. Claim construction opinion regarding fifteen terms from three patents.
The following terms were considered:
- “Brewing reservoir”
- “Providing a plurality of disposable filter packs/Providing a plurality of single-serving disposable brew baskets”
- “Size dimensioned appropriate to make approximately only a single serving of beverage during a single brewing operation”
- “Sufficiently large to hold one of the filter packs and the heated water while brewing without a level of the heated water rising above and overflowing the open top/sufficiently large to hold at least one of the filter packs and the heated water while brewing without a level of the heated water rising above and overflowing the open top”
- “Brewing area”
- “Sufficient to brew approximately only a single serving of brewed beverage/ sufficient to brew approximately only a single serving of beverage”
- “The packaging limitations”
- “The brew baskets being inserted into the location in the beverage brewing machine/the brew baskets being individually inserted into the location during an associated brewing operating/the brewing machine heating water from the water reservoir”
- “The filter pack being placed in the brewing reservoir through the open top”
- “Wherein a first brew basket of the plurality of disposable brew baskets is utilized in the beverage brewing machine during a first brewing operation and a second brew basket of the plurality of disposable brew baskets is utilized in the beverage brewing machine during a second brewing operation”
- “Wherein each of the plurality of disposable brew baskets is utilized in the same beverage brewing machine during a corresponding plurality of single brewing operations”
- “Wherein the plurality of disposable brew baskets are packaged before use”
- “The lid being lifted open to permit water to be freely poured into the water reservoir”
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, et al. v. Canon, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-473 – SLR, November 9, 2015
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of 2 patents is denied and granted in part as to five patents. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity of two patents is denied and granted in part as to eight patents. Plaintiffs’ cross-motion of no invalidity of three patents is granted in part. Defendants’ motion to strike a supplemental expert report is denied. Defendants’ motion to sever and stay one patent is denied.
Two patents-in-suit relate to Wi-Fi technology, and the remaining eight patents relate to various technologies found in printers, scanners and cameras. The court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the two Wi-Fi patents. An infringement claim identified in infringement contentions, but not in an expert report is dismissed with prejudice. Claim construction of the term “station” remains for trial. Plaintiffs are precluded from raising DOE for one patent for failure to respond substantively to defendants’ arguments. Expert disagreement equates to a material factual dispute and thus summary judgment is denied on both competing motions regarding the ‘728 patent. A thesis placed on the shelf of the library without cataloguing before the critical date did not provide public notice and was not prior art to the ‘728 patent. A motion to strike a supplemental expert report was denied because it responded to new opinion and relied on a document not previously not available. Defendants had identified new products on the last day of fact discovery. A §101 challenge fails when the court finds the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Alice. Summary judgment of non-infringement is granted where a temporal aspect of a claim was not found in the accused product. The DOE argument fails because it would vitiate the claim limitation. Plaintiff has not shown accused products perform a determining step of a method patent and defendants’ motion for summary judgment of anticipation is granted as to this patent. Defendants’ further do not infringe certain claims of the ‘914 patent. The court declines to sever and stay resolution of one patent pending an appeal to the Federal Circuit where the claim is construed differently from the construction assigned by the PTAB since expert discovery and dispositive motion practice is concluded and the trial date is near.
StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. v. PhoneFactor, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-490 – RGA-MPT, November 9, 2015.
Thynge, C.M.J. Plaintiff’s request for claim interpretation is denied. The stay ordered on June 10, 2015 is lifted.
Plaintiff requests interpretation of two words used to construe claim terms: “isolation” and “facilities.” Plaintiff’s argument that the court overruled previous claim construction is wrong. Plaintiff’s objections were overruled and the constructions adopted. Plaintiff’s motion is akin to a motion for reargument. Having filed objections plaintiff is now barred by 7.1.5(a) from reargument by either a magistrate judge or a district court judge.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-515 – LPS-CJB, November 9, 2015.
Burke, M. J. Report and Recommendation recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no anticipation be granted in part. Oral argument took place on January 30, 2015 and trial is set to begin December 7, 2015.
The disputed technology relates to intraluminal stent grafts the court recommends that the motion be granted with respect to references that specifically disclose a thickness of 0.10mm and that the motion be otherwise denied as there are issues of fact that remain precluding summary judgment.
Delaware Display Group, LLC, et al. v. Lenovo Group Ltd., et al., C.A. Nos. 13-2108 –RGA: C.A. No. 13-2019 – RGA; C.A. No. 13-2112- RGA, November 6, 2015.
Andrews, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding eight terms from four patents. A Markman hearing took place on October 27, 2015
The disputed technology relates to computer images. The following term was considered:
- “transition region”
- “pass through a liquid crystal display with low loss”
- “optical elements”
- “positioned near” or “positioning a film near”
- “in close proximity”
- “relatively low angles”
- “more in the width direction”
Endoheart AG v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation., C.A. No. 14-1473 –LPS-CJB, November 6, 2015
Andrews, J. Report and Recommendation, recommending that third party’s motion to intervene be granted.
Hospital seeks to intervene in order to press its claim of ownership of patent and certain related patent applications. The court finds that the four elements required to be proven in order to intervene are met. The motion is timely, still in the discovery phase. Hospital has established a legal interest at issue. None of the existing parties will adequately represent the hospital’s ownership interest.
Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-1110 – GMS, November 4, 2015.
Sleet, J. Post trial motions to amend findings and judgment on anticipation and infringement are denied
During trial the orally court granted plaintiffs motion for judgment of partial findings on lack of anticipation and indefiniteness. It further ruled in favor of plaintiffs finding that “fesoterodine” includes the salt form of the compound. Defendants move the court to amend findings on anticipation and Sandoz moves to amend a finding of infringement. The court finds that defendants never raised the issue of inventorship they now belatedly raise. In any event the evidence on record is sufficient to support the court’s ruling. Sandoz’s takes issue with the construction of the term “fesoterodine” to include salts. It rehashes arguments already made and the motion to reconsider it is denied.
Hospira, Inc., et al. v. Eurohealth International SARL, et al., C.A. Nos. 14-487 – GMS; C.A. No. 14-1008- GMS, November 3, 2015.
Sleet, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding two terms from one patent.
The disputed technology relates to dexmedetomidine and its pharmaceutically acceptable salts. The following term was considered:
- “loading dose”
Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-2034 – GMS, November 3, 2015.
Sleet, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding one term from two patents.
The following term was considered:
“treatment for HVC”
NCR Corp. v. Documotion Research, Inc., C.A. No. 14-395 – GMS, November 3, 2015.
Sleet, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding twenty-five terms from four patents.
The disputed technology relates to cutting adhesive patches. The following terms were considered:
- “single column”
- “single column… in a minor area of back surface”
- “with the remaining major area of said back surface being devoid of adhesive”
- “adhesive-free major area”
- “devoid of adhesive”
- “said labels extend transversely across said web in cantilever from said adhesive column to permit hand grasping of said adhesive-free major area”
- “reducing surface area along said feedpath”
- “an identically repeating series of differently sized adhesive patches…aligned in a column along said web”
- “and differently sized adhesive zones therebetween aligned in a column along said web”
- “said adhesive patches vary in width between leading and trailing edges thereof along said running axis”
- “index marks”
- “adhesive layer is variably patterned”
- “to include areas with adhesive and areas without adhesive to vary locations of contact between the adhesive layer and a cutting mechanism making variably located lateral cuts across width of the substrate”
- “variably located lateral cuts”
- “the areas without adhesive comprise adhesive free lanes arranged vertically and/or horizontally within the adhesive layer”
- “elongated diamond shapes”
- “repeat length”
- “a label configured to be custom cut from the roll of media by a thermal at custom lengths”
- “the front portion displaying information for a transaction”
- “pattern for adhesive material” and “adhesive pattern”
- “repeat distance”
- “providing the pattern and repeat distance to a printing press or a coater”
- “providing the pattern and repeat distance to a printing press or a coater, wherein the printing press or the coater (i) coats a first side of a web of media with thermally sensitive inks”
- “to assist in reducing any buildup of adhesive material on a cutting mechanism when the cutting mechanism subsequently cuts laterally across the media web”
- “is of a shape which assists in evenly distributing any buildup of adhesive material on a surface of a printer”
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-515 – LPS, October 23, 2015.
Burke, M. J. Motion to exclude opinions and testimony from damages expert is granted with leave for supplemental discovery.
Defendants move to strike certain opinions and testimony of plaintiff’s damages expert Laura B. Stamm. The Magistrate considers this to be a non-dispositive motion. Oral argument was held on this motion, and trial is set to begin on December 7, 2015. Defendants argue that testimony regarding a reasonable royalty does not provide the necessary predicate testimony since the analysis provided by the expert does not establish that licenses relied upon concern technology comparable to the patents-in-suit. The technical expert’s reports relied upon by the damages expert contain no opinions as to whether the technology is comparable. The technical expert is permitted to provide a short addendum to his report on the issue of technological comparability. Defendants may then depose the technical expert on this supplemental report.
Willfulness claim survives challenge; court recommends dismissing inequitable conduct claim with leave to replead
Courtesy Products L.L.C. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2012–SLR-SRF, October 20, 2015.
Fallon, M. J. Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss willful infringement claims be denied and that plaintiff’s partial motion to dismiss and strike inequitable conduct counterclaims and defenses be granted in part.
The disputed technology relates to disposable brew basket technology for electric coffee makers. Plaintiff asserts that it sufficiently pleaded objective recklessness by alleging defendant had pre-suit knowledge of a patent, sold infringing products and instructed its clients on the use of the infringing products. The court agrees, finding attempts to distinguish this case from other Delaware case law nonavailing. Allegations of defendant having executed a license to practice claims of the patent-in-suit provided a sufficient link between knowledge of the patent and objective recklessness. With respect to inequitable conduct, defendant’s allegations sufficiently identified the who, what, when, where, and how of misrepresentations. However, the defendant has failed to sufficiently plead but-for materiality, and the court recommends granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s inequitable conduct counterclaim and affirmative defense. The court further found it is reasonable to infer intent to deceive the patent office. The court recommends that defendant be permitted to file an amended pleading. A motion seeking dismissal of an antitrust counterclaim is reserved for Judge Robinson.
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, et al., C.A. No. 14-1317 – SLR, October 20, 2015.
Robinson, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding six terms from three patents. A Markman hearing took place on September 17, 2015
The following terms were considered:
- An isolated monocional antibody
- Binds [to]residues
- An epitope on PCSK9 comprising at least one of the residues 237 or 238
- Wherein the epitope is a functional epitope
- Wherein the isolated monocional antibody is a human antibody
Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-1432 – LPS- CJB, October 16 , 2015.
Burke, M. J. Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny defendant’s motion to dismiss pre-suit induced infringement claims.
Plaintiff accuses defendants’ semiconductor chip products of infringing 13 patents, one of which is the subject of this motion. The complaint cites to no direct evidence indicating that defendants ever reviewed or cited to the patent-in-suit prior to suit. Plaintiff does allege facts relating to defendants’ knowledge of the parent patent and also alleges that the patent-in-suit was well-known in the industry and frequently referenced by defendants’ competitors. While this issue amounts to a very close call, taken as a whole the allegations render it at least plausible that defendant was aware of the patent as of the date of its issuance. As for infringement claims, while plaintiff’s allegations of how and why the accused products infringe are not extremely specific, defendants do not explain why they are insufficient to set out a plausible claim of direct infringement. In response to the argument that plaintiff has not pleaded entity-specific facts with respect to certain defendants, the court is mindful that it must take a realistic view of what a plaintiff can allege at this early stage with respect to another party’s knowledge. It’s at least plausible that knowledge of the patent, knowledge of infringement, and infringing intent could reside within all four related defendants.