Written By: Christopher H. Blaszkowski & Alyssa M. Pugh Following the Supreme Court decision regarding patent eligibility in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), the District of Delaware has found a number of patents invalid as directed to patent ineligible subject matter. The application of Alice [...]

Written By: Andrew J. Koopman & Jacob Blumert Two recent Delaware District Court opinions have shed light on the question of personal jurisdiction in ANDA suits in the wake of the new rules established by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman. 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014).

Written By: Rex A. Donnelly, Andrew J. Koopman and Christopher H. Blaszkowski For many years, the District of Delaware has ranked among the top venues in the nation for patent infringement cases, due in no small part to the experience of the judges who hear them and the general ease of establishing jurisdiction. In 2013, [...]

Written By: Andrew J. Koopman In Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-318-LPS, Google sought review of patent claims asserted by Walker Digital under the Covered Business Method Patent Review (“CBM Review”) program authorized under the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Upon institution of the review by the Patent and Trademark Office, Google [...]

Written By: Brett J. Rosen In St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Acer, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 10-282-LPS (D. Del. July 2, 2013), Defendants Acer et al. filed a motion for summary judgment of laches. Defendants argued that St. Clair had constructive knowledge of activities infringing the patents-in-suit more than six years prior [...]

Written By: Christopher H. Blaszkowski In buySAFE, Inc. v. Google Inc., Civ. No. 11-1282-LPS (D. Del. July 29, 2013), Google moved for judgment on the pleadings that U.S. Patent No. 7,644,019 (“the ‘019 Patent”) was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Written By: Andrew J. Koopman In Helios Software, LLC and Pearl Software, Inc. v. SpectorSoft Corp., C.A. 12-81-LPS, Judge Stark ordered Plaintiffs to produce more detailed supplemental infringement contention claim charts outlining the basis for their allegation that each of six accused products infringed nearly every claim of three patents, and also ordered Plaintiffs to [...]