Loading...

Follow Delaware IP Law Blog | Young Conaway Stargatt &.. on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

On August 1, 2018, the Senate confirmed Colm F. Connolly and Maryellen Noreika as the District of Delaware’s newest District Judges. Connolly will fill the seat vacated by the retirement of Judge Sue L. Robinson, and Noreika will fill the seat vacated by Senior Judge Gregory M. Sleet. These confirmations return the District of Delaware to a full complement of District Judges.

Colm Connolly is a partner with the law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, where he manages the Wilmington office as a member of the firm’s litigation and intellectual property practice groups. He joined Morgan Lewis in 2009, after serving eight years as the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware. Before his confirmation as United States Attorney, Mr. Connolly spent more than two years as a partner in the Wilmington law firm Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP. Prior to joining Morris Nichols, Mr. Connolly served for seven years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Delaware and as a law clerk to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Connolly earned his B.A., with honors, from the University of Notre Dame, his M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and his J.D., with honors, from the Duke University School of Law.

Maryellen Noreika is a partner in the Wilmington law firm of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP where she began her career as an associate upon graduation from law school in 1993. During her 24 years at Morris Nichols, Ms. Noreika has served as counsel in more than 500 cases, while specializing in patent law, and representing parties in cases involving biotechnology, chemistry, consumer products, computer science, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. Ms. Noreika earned her B.S. from Lehigh University, her M.A. in biology from Columbia University, and her J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh, where she was inducted into the Order of the Coif, and served as a member of the University of Pittsburgh Law Review.

The nominees’ answers to the Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees can be accessed below:

Connolly:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Connolly%20SJQ.pdf

Noreika:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Noreika%20SJQ.pdf

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Registration is now open for the 2018 District of Delaware Bench and Bar Conference. Please visit https://defba.org/bench-and-bar/ to register. The agenda for the Conference is available here. We hope to see you on Mary 3 and 4.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently granted a motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of a patented “apparatus, method and database for control of audio/video equipment” is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.   D&M Holdings Inc. v. Sonos, Inc., C.A. No. 16-141-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 20, 2018).  The Court agreed with the defendant that the claim at issue was “at most, directed to the automation process that can be (and has been) performed by humans,” such as when (1) a person chooses a particular DVD to watch by identifying its title, (2) the person determines, based on memory, whether he or she watched the DVD previously and, if so, whether he or she selected playback preferences, and (3) if the person recalls such playback preferences, selecting the same preferences before beginning to watch the DVD or, if no such preferences are recalled, the DVD plays with default preferences.   Id. at 8.  The Court thus viewed the asserted claim as “directed to the abstract idea of choosing to play back media with or without playback preferences.”  Further, it “provides no inventive concept, and at most merely automate[s] the abstract idea through the use of a generic, conventional technology.”  Id. at 12.

D&M 16-141 (02-20)

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

In December 2016, a Delaware jury found that Gilead had failed to prove the asserted patent in this case was invalid and awarded damages of $2.54 billion. But Chief Judge Stark has now granted Gilead’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims are not enabled. Although Gilead also moved for JMOL or a new trial with respect to damages, Judge Stark denied that motion and a motion arguing that the asserted patent failed the written description requirement. Instead, Judge Stark found that because “the Structural Limitations [of the asserted claims] are satisfied by such a large number of compounds . . . the amount of experimentation to refine this broad set of compounds to those that also satisfy the Functional Limitations [of the asserted claims], given the limited teachings on this point in the patent and the state of the prior art, is an ‘undue’ amount. Thus, the only conclusion that can be reached based on the trial record is that the asserted claims . . . are invalid for lack of enablement.”Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 14-846-LPS, Op. at 45-46 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2018).

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 14-846-LPS (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2018).

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview