Archive for 'Hon. Richard G. Andrews'

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 [...]


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. [...]


Written By: Alyssa M. Pugh In two recent patent infringement actions, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware addressed notice issues arising out of disputes concerning 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). In both actions, the District of Delaware provided clarification regarding the propriety of notice given by patentees to accused infringers. Id.


Written By: Christopher H. Blaszkowski & Jacob Blumert In Inc. v. AOL Advertising Inc., Judge Andrews, once again, granted a motion to dismiss on the basis that the patents at issue were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. No. 14 Civ. 92 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2015). The asserted patents generally relate to business [...]


Courts Continue To Invalidate Patents For Ineligible Subject Matter At The Pleadings Stage Written By: Benjamin E. Leace & Christopher H. Blaszkowski This article appeared in the April 1, 2015 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer Less than 10 months ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision regarding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 [...]


Written By: Christopher H. Blaszkowski In Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Comm. Co. L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 12-205-RGA (D. Del. July 16, 2014), Judge Andrews granted partial summary judgment that one of Comcast’s four asserted patents failed to recite patentable subject matter and, accordingly, was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The [...]


Written By: Gleb Epelbaum and Andrew J. Koopman In EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. FLO TV Inc., Civil Action No. 10-812-RGA (D. Del. May 27, 2014), EON asserted infringement of a patent containing means-plus-functions claims for a computer-implemented method. As the litigation progressed, EON’s prospects for recovering substantial damages diminished, after FLO TV went [...]


Written By: Christopher H. Blaszkowski Infinite Data LLC (“Infinite Data”) brought twenty one patent infringement cases against various customers of Mellanox Technologies (“Mellanox”), accusing each customer of infringement by their use of the software product supplied by Mellanox, but did not sue Mellanox.  Mellanox later filed a declaratory judgment action against Infinite Data (“the Mellanox [...]


Written By: Brett J. Rosen In M2M Solutions LLC v. Simcom Wireless et al. Civ. No. 12-034-RGA (D. Del. April 1, 2013), Co-Defendant Micron Electronics LLC (“Micron”) moved for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction among other grounds. 


Written By: Christopher H. Blaszkowski AVM Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Civil Action No. 10-610-RGA (January 4, 2013) concerned AVM’s assertion of U.S. Patent No. 5,859,547, relating to dynamic logic circuits, against Intel’s microprocessors.