Source: http://45.56.101.214/de-litigation-blog/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:57:03+00:00

Document:
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 for writ of mandamus, the panel of Judges Lourie, Reyna, and Stoll determined that Judge Gilstrap’s denial of Cray Inc.’s (“Cray”) motion to transfer for improper venue was an abuse of discretion.
Posted: September 22nd, 2017 under Press Release.
Posted: June 20th, 2017 under Press Release.
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).
Posted: June 14th, 2017 under Press Release.
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 product, regardless of any restrictions attached to the sale, or where the product was sold.
Posted: May 30th, 2017 under Press Release.
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” is limited to the state of incorporation for a domestic corporation.
Posted: May 22nd, 2017 under Press Release.
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 jurisdiction in the District of Delaware, but that a transfer of venue was warranted as litigation in the District of Delaware posed an unreasonable burden on the Defendant. Id. at 8 and 10.
Posted: August 25th, 2016 under Hon. Sue L. Robinson.
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 filed by Pragmatus, did not rise to the level of “exceptional” under the Octane framework.
Posted: May 23rd, 2016 under Hon. Richard G. Andrews.
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. No. CV 15-545-SLR-SRF (D. Del. March 15, 2016).
Posted: May 11th, 2016 under Hon. Sherry R. Fallon.
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 Court resolves those claims against Mitek. Civ. Nos. 14-617, 14-1142, 14-1143, and 14-1144 (D. Del. July 31, 2015).
Posted: November 11th, 2015 under Hon. Gregory M. Sleet.
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. Id. at 1-2. Watson asserted that Merck’s patent was invalid for being anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, for being on-sale or being offered for sale more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application. Id.
Posted: November 11th, 2015 under Hon. Richard G. Andrews.

References: § 1400
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1400
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 102