Written by: Alyssa R.M. Pugh
On September 21, 2017, the Federal Circuit in In re Cray Inc. rejected Judge Gilstrap’s (E.D. Tex.) interpretation of the meaning of “where the defendant … has a regular and established place of business” for purposes of venue in patent infringement actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). On a petition
Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog
Blog Authors
Latest from Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog
Supreme Court Strikes Down Lanham Act’s “Disparagement Clause” for Violating the First Amendment
Written by: John W. McGlynn, Alyssa R.M. Pugh
Declaring that “[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam (No. 15-1293) held that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) is facially unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech…
Supreme Court Issues Important Decision in the Biopharma Sector Favoring Earlier Entrance of Cost-Saving Biosimilars into the US Market
Written by: James Matthew Gould
In a closely watched case in the biopharma space (Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., No. 15–1039, June 12, 2017), the Supreme Court issued its first ever decision on how to interpret the biosimilar patent dispute provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).
Most importantly, the Court ruled
Most importantly, the Court ruled
…
Supreme Court Limits Patent Owners’ Control Over Patented Articles After Authorized Sale
Written by: Christopher A. Rothe
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision today that largely answers the question of how much control a patent owner can wield over a patented product after it has been sold, holding that a patent owner’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that…
Under Heartland, Patent Litigation Filings in Delaware Expected to Rise
Written by: Christopher H. Blaszkowski
In a long awaited decision having the potential to impact where patent suits are litigated, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC today. TC Heartland confirms that, for the purposes of the venue statute for patent infringement actions—28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)—“resides”…
Judge Robinson Grants Venue Transfer for “Unreasonable Burden” on Defendant
Written by: Jacob Blumert
In a recent order arising from Segway, Inc. et al. v. Inventist, Inc., Judge Robinson denied a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, while granting a motion to transfer venue. No. CV 15-808-SLR (D. Del. April 25, 2016). Specifically, Judge Robinson held that Inventist, Inc., Defendant, was subject to personal…
Judge Andrews Denies Motion for Attorneys’ Fees In Suit Against Pragmatus
Written By: Alyssa M. Pugh
In Pragmatus Telecom LLC v. Newegg Inc., Judge Andrews addressed Newegg’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in view of the Supreme Court’s “exceptional case” doctrine set forth in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. Judge Andrews ultimately found that this case, one in a wave of infringement suits
…
General Pre-Suit Licensing Communication Insufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss Claims for Willful Infringement
Written By: Jacob Blumert
In a report and recommendation for Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon recommended the dismissal of Evolved Wireless’s claims for willful infringement and pre-complaint indirect infringement, finding the Evolved “failed to adequately plead” the required elements of each claim.
…
Infringement Claims Severed And Stayed Against Manufacturer’s Customers, Where Claims Were “Peripheral” To Those Asserted Against Manufacturer
Written By: Christopher H. Blaszkowski
In a series of four separate patent infringement actions, each involving plaintiff Rothschild Mobile Imaging Innovations (“RMII”), defendant Mitek Systems (“Mitek”), and one of four bank customers of Mitek’s (“the Bank Defendants”), Judge Sleet granted the Bank Defendants’ motions to sever and stay RMII’s infringement claims against them until the
…
Merck Uses Pre-Negotiation Agreement to Defeat On-sale Bar Claim
Written By: Jacob Blumert
In Merck & Cie v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. CV 13-1272 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2015), Judge Andrews analyzed the requirements of the offer for sale bar in the context of pharmaceutical compounds. Merck asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,441,168 (“‘168 Patent”) in response to Watson’s filing of two ANDAs.
…