Markman decision issues in dispute relating to a method for representation of space-related data of an object
ART+COM Innovationpool GmbH v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 14-217 – RGA, June 26, 2015.
Andrews, J. The court considers 14 terms from the patent-in-suit. Oral argument took place on May 12, 2015.
The court construed the following terms:
- Centrally storing the data for the field of view;
- Image resolutions
- The co-ordinates of the data
- Quadrant tree
- Octant tree
- Polygonal grid model
- Requesting data for the field of view from at least one of the plurality of spatially distributed data sources
- Space-related data
- Plurality of spatially distributed data sources
- Determining the data and/or the co-ordinates of the data in terms of a new co-ordinate system/ determining the data or the co-ordinates of the data in terms of a new co-ordinate system
- Representing the data for the field of view in a pictorial representation having one or more sections
- Dividing each of the one or more sections having image resolutions below a desired image resolution into plurality of smaller sections, requesting higher resolution space-related data for each of the smaller sections
- Repeating step (f), dividing the sections into smaller sections, until every section has the desired image resolution or no higher image resolution data is available
- Wherein the space-related data are provided with references to thematically adjacent data
Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., C.A. Nos. 13-1674 – RGA; Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., June 26, 2015.
Andrews, J. The court previously construed other disputed terms. It now has considered and construed the term “buffer.”
The dispute centered on whether a buffer must include both a weak acid and a conjugate base, or alternatively whether a buffer need only include a weak acid or a conjugate base. The court is not persuaded by the constructions of other courts interpreting different patents with different intrinsic records.
Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Celgene Corp. C.A. No. 13-1644 – RGA, June 26, 2015.
Andrews, J. The court considers 5 terms from one patent relating to the treatment of cancers using methods and combinations that include thalidomide and other agents.
The following terms are considered:
- Enhanced; enhanced combination
- Enhanced therapeutically-effective amounts of thalidomide
- Neoplastic diseases
- Said neoplastic diseases are sensitive to said enhanced combination
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Neurovision Medical Products, Inc., C.A. No. 15-286 – LPS- CJB, June 23, 2015.
Burke, M. J. Defendant’s motion to stay pending IPR is denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a petition for IPR on December 23, 2014 seeking to invalidate all 19 claims of two patents-in-suit. The PTO’s decision on whether to initiate IPR is due by July 21, 2015. The court denies the motion with leave to renew after the PTO determines whether to initiate the IPR proceedings. The court finds that a stay with respect to one of the patents-in-suit is not mandatory pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(2)(B) since the patentee filed a civil action. The amount of discovery that will take place before the PTO decides is modest and will not amount to a large-scale waste of resources. Waiting for the decision allows for clarity. There is a pending motion to dismiss claims relating to an additional patent and the court will be able to review that motion before the PTO decision is issued. The court understands under Judge Stark’s new patent procedures there is a preference for cases to move forward pending a motion to dismiss.
Interdigital, Inc., et al. v. Wistron Corporation, C.A. No. 15-478 – LPS, June 17, 2015.
Stark, C. J. Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to remand to the Court of Chancery is granted.
Plaintiffs seek a TRO to prevent defendant from advancing a suit in the Intellectual Property Court of Taiwan. The parties here are parties to a license with a forum selection clause whereby the parties “irrevocably consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts in the State of Delaware.” The issue is whether that language precludes removal to the federal court after plaintiff first files in the state court. The court exercises its discretion to remand.
Pragmatus Mobile, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., C.A. Nos. 14-365 – LPS; 14-440 – LPS, June 17, 2015
Stark, C. J. Moving defendants’ motion for stay pending IPR is denied.
The PTAB has not yet instituted the IPR petition. The deadline for decision on whether to institute the IPR petition is October 22, 2015. Delay in petitioning for IPR could create some tactical disadvantage to plaintiff and a stay could prejudice plaintiff, a non-practicing entity. Defendants were aware of the prior art asserted in the IPR petition for many months and delayed filing until 3 days before the statutory deadline. The simplification issue does not cut in favor of a stay until the petition for IPR is granted. Defendants may renew their motion at that time to reevaluate the simplification factor. A trial date is set for September 12, 2016, at about the same time as the IPR may be fully decided. The parties have substantially completed document production, exchanged contentions, and commenced briefing for an August Markman hearing. The motion to stay is denied without prejudice.
Copy Protection LLC v. Netflix, Inc., C.A. No. 14-365 – LPS, June 17, 2015
Stark, C. J. Defendant’s motion for stay pending IPR is denied.
The PTAB has not yet instituted the IPR petition. The deadline for decision on whether to institute the IPR petition is October 22, 2015. Delay in petitioning for IPR could create some tactical disadvantage to plaintiff and a stay could prejudice plaintiff, a non-practicing entity. There is a potential for undue prejudice since the stay may result in prolonging the final resolution. The simplification issue does not cut in favor of a stay until the petition for IPR is granted. Defendants may renew their motion at that time to reevaluate the simplification factor. A trial date is set for October 11, 2016, at about the same time as the IPR may be fully decided. The parties have engaged in a substantial amount of discovery and are set to complete claim construction briefing shortly. The motion to stay is denied without prejudice.
Micro Design LLC v. ASUS Computer International, C.A. No. 14-837-LPS-CJB, May 1, 2015
Burke, M.J. Defendant’s motion to transfer is denied. Briefing on the motion was completed on February 2, 2015 and the case is scheduled for trial on April 10, 2017.
A motion to transfer venue is considered a non-dispositive motion. There are 7 related cases regarding the same patent-in-suit. Plaintiff is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Wilmington. Defendant is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in California. It is responsible for US sales, marketing, distribution and service of the accused products. The disputed technology relates to a method and apparatus for issuing a command to store an instruction and load resultant data in a microcontroller. All of the related cases involve the same patent claims and all accused products include the same coprocessor. Defendant claims that plaintiff misrepresented the location of its business, but did not persuade the court that the office is nothing more than a drop box. Plaintiff’s choice of Delaware weighs against transfer despite defendant’s arguments that plaintiff manipulated the forum. Defendant’s choice of California where its business is located weighs in favor of transfer. Place where the claims arose factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. The convenience of the parties and witnesses factors are neutral. The location of books and records weighs slightly in favor of transfer. The public interest factors weigh against transfer primarily due to the number of related cases in Delaware. The balancing of these factors do not weigh strongly in favor of transfer and therefore the motion to transfer is denied.
Adidas AG, et al. v. Under Armour, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 14-130 – GMS, June 15, 2015
Sleet, J. The court considers for construction 13 disputed terms from 9 patents.
The following terms are considered:
- "at least one of a set including"
- "rating tool"
- ''user rating"
- "individual rating"
- "route rating"
- "route path"
- "while the user is engaged in the physical activity"
- "base station" [not construed at this time; input from POSITA needed]
- "separate input device"
- "separate device"
- "position data" and "position information"
- "positions points"
- "during the physical activity" [plain and ordinary meaning]
Plaintiff survives motion to dismiss provided complaint is amended to include record generated through motion practice
Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-894-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 14-895-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. Atlantic Broadband Group LLC, 14-896-SLR; v. Cable One Inc., 14-897-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v.CSC Holdings LLC, 14-898-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. CenturyLink Communications, LLC, 14-899-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. Sprint Corp., 14-901-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. T-Mobile US Inc., 14-902-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. U.S. Cellular Corp., 14-903-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, 14-904-SLR June 4, 2015
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim are denied. Claim 1 is a method claim and the accused network congestion management practices are used by defendants internally. The court questions whether there is any way for a patentee to provide the level of detail defendants claim is required by Iqbal and Twombly. Defendants’ reasoning could deny an entire class of patent holders the opportunity to get before a court to test their IP rights. Plaintiff’s responsive papers provide more information that form the basis of the infringement contentions. Under the current law defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied without prejudice to renew if plaintiff fails to amend the complaints. The court notes that the overarching issue of whether inventions expressed through software should have been patented is being reexamined on a national level and is not currently before the court.