Delaware Intellectual Property Law Update
January 30, 2018
Publication| Intellectual Property
Welcome to the latest edition of the Richards, Layton & Finger Intellectual Property Law Update. As always, if you have questions about any of the decisions listed below or the District of Delaware in general, please let us know.
Chief Judge Stark Denies Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review
In President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 17-1729-LPS-SRF (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2018), Chief Judge Stark denied the defendant’s motion to stay pending inter partes review. Although six claims among the two asserted patents were under inter partes review, the PTAB declined to institute review of the seventh claim asserted in this litigation.
Read More >>
Chief Judge Stark Dismisses Defendant for Improper Venue
In Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Kyocera Corp., No. 17-87-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2017), Chief Judge Stark denied defendant Kyocera Corp.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but granted defendant Kyocera International, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for improper venue.
Read More >>
Chief Judge Stark Denies Request for Interlocutory Appeal
In Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Entertainment Inc., No. 12-1461-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2017), Chief Judge Stark denied Princeton Digital Image Corp.’s request to certify an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s denial of its motion to dismiss invalidity counterclaims.
Read More >>
Magistrate Judge Burke Strikes Damages Theory as Untimely
In Integra Lifesciences Corp. v. Hyperbranch Medical Technology, Inc., No. 15-819-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2017), Magistrate Judge Burke granted in part the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ price erosion and market-share apportionment damages theory as untimely.
Read More >>
Judge Sleet Denies Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Sanctions
In Amgen Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., C.A. No. 17-CV-815-GMS (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2017), Judge Sleet denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for sanctions filed by two defendants in this consolidated Hatch-Waxman Act litigation.
Read More >>
Chief Judge Stark Finds that Waiver of Privilege Extends to Pre-Patent and Post-Complaint Communications
In Morphosys AG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., No. 16-221-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Oct. 26, 2017), Chief Judge Stark ordered the defendant Janssen Biotech Inc. to produce materials previously withheld as privileged. Janssen had relied on advice of counsel as a defense to willful infringement, but the parties disputed the scope of the resulting waiver. The plaintiff, Morphosys AG, sought all documents regarding infringement or validity, regardless of their relationship to the opinion of counsel or whether they were generated before the patent issued or after the complaint was filed.
Read More >>