Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment of infringement and to preclude expert testimony.  Defendants moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, no willful infringement, the statute of limitations, and in opposition to plaintiffs’ non-patent-related causes of action.  Defendant also sought to exclude plaintiffs’ damages expert.  Motions for summary judgment on the issue of literal infringement were denied because a material fact existed following the court’s claim construction of “substantially equal.”  Plaintiffs also failed to establish the absence of a material fact regarding its doctrine of equivalence argument. Defendants’ summary judgment motion of no willful infringement was denied because plaintiffs demonstrated the existence of a material fact regarding whether defendants deliberately copied and whether it had formed a good-faith belief that the patent was invalid or not infringed.  Plaintiffs also raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning “their notice and due diligence[,]” thus warranting denial of the defendants’ summary judgment motion as to the statute of limitations.  Material issues of fact also precluded summary judgment on plaintiffs’ trade dress claim.  In view thereof, defendants conceded that the unfair competition and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim could proceed.  Exclusion of economic damages expert testimony was not warranted because the shortcomings identified went to the weight and credibility rather than admissibility.