On March 6, 2020, a Central District Court in UPL NA Inc. f/k/a United Phosphorous, Inc. v. Tide International (USA), Inc. et al, 8-19-cv-01201 (CDCA 2020-03-06, Order) (Ronald S.W. Lew), issued an order that may become more common place across courts.  At the request of the parties, the Court issued a temporary stay of all discovery in the action because of the threat posed by the Coronavirus.

Specifically, the Court noted that the parties had jointly stipulated that “discovery efforts are being significantly impacted by the outbreak of coronavirus. Both parties have sought materials and testimony from witnesses who are located outside of the United States, including in China, and given current travel restrictions and quarantine rules, obtaining the discovery sought at this time is impractical, if not impossible.”  Therefore, the Court found good cause to temporarily vacate the discovery dates presented in the parties’ joint request.
Continue Reading District Court Stays Discovery Deadlines Because of Coronavirus Threat but Keeps Markman Hearing on Calendar

The Supreme Court recently decided a patent case involving a significant procedural issue.  In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (1/20/15), the question before the Court was whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals should review a district court’s factfindings in its claim construction decision under a de novo or a “clearly erroneous” standard.   The Court held that the proper standard of review, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), is “clearly erroneous.”  The case establishes a two-part standard of review of a district court’s claim construction decision: a clearly erroneous standard for subsidiary facts and a de novo standard for the question of law.

The case involved Teva Pharmaceuticals’ patent for a method of making a drug to treat multiple sclerosis.  Sandoz began to sell a generic version of the drug.  Teva Pharmaceuticals sued Sandoz for patent infringement.  The claim at issue referred to a polymer having a specific molecular weight.  Sandoz argued that Teva Pharmaceuticals’ patent was invalid because the term “molecular weight” was indefinite.  Sandoz contended that there were three possible meanings of “molecular weight,” and that the patent did not explain which one was to be used.

The district court held that the patent was valid, based on expert testimony, finding that the term “molecular weight” was definite to a person skilled in the art.