IP Verse

Pipstek, Llc V. Biolase, Inc. - 1:23-cv-00011

Explore the details of the Pipstek, Llc V. Biolase, Inc. case under case number 1:23-cv-00011 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:23-cv-00011
Filing Date
Jan 4, 2023
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
Biolase, Inc. -
PIPstek, LLC -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Jan 11, 2023Case Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb)PACER Document
Jan 17, 2023SO ORDERED re 7 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney John B. Sganga, Jr., Sheila N. Swaroop and Marko R. Zoretic filed by Pipstek, LLC. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 1/17/2023. (dlw)PACER Document
Jan 23, 2023SO ORDERED re 8 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for Defendant to move, answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to March 13, 2023 (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Biolase, Inc. answer due 3/13/2023). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 1/23/2023. (dlw)PACER Document
Mar 13, 2023SO ORDERED re 9 Stipulation and Order Regarding Response to Complaint (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Biolase, Inc. answer due 3/27/2023). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 3/13/2023. (dlw)PACER Document
Mar 23, 2023SO ORDERED re 10 Stipulation and Order Regarding Response to Complaint (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Biolase, Inc. answer due 4/26/2023). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 3/23/2023. (dlw)PACER Document
Apr 25, 2023SO ORDERED re 11 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to May 3, 2023 (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Biolase, Inc. answer due 5/3/2023). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 4/25/2023. (dlw)PACER Document
May 3, 2023SO ORDERED re 14 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Ranjini Acharya filed by Biolase, Inc. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 5/3/2023. (dlw)PACER Document
May 4, 2023ORAL ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall confer regarding proposed dates in the scheduling order and shall submit a proposed order, which is also consistent with the following guidance. The parties shall provide final contentions (i.e., final infringement and invalidity contentions, as well as final non-infringement and validity contentions) around the time that fact discovery closes (i.e., several weeks prior to or after the deadline to complete fact discovery) and at least three weeks before Plaintiff serves its opening claim construction brief. Final contentions shall include a party's contentions under its proposed construction(s), as well as under the opposing construction(s) (if such an alternative contention exists). As such, the parties are encouraged to exchange proposed claim terms and proposed constructions early in the case but in no event later than necessary to allow the parties to include alternative contentions in their final contentions. The joint claim construction chart shall be due one week after the parties have completed their exchange of final contentions, and the joint claim construction brief must be filed at least three weeks before the claim construction hearing. The parties shall leave at least three weeks between the claim construction hearing and the opening of expert discovery. The parties are to use the Court's form scheduling order, which is posted at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov (see Chambers, Judge Noreika, Forms), and the parties must include a proposal for the length and timing of trial. If there are disputes or issues that the Court needs to address in the proposed scheduling order, the parties shall direct the Court to the paragraph numbers in which those appear in a cover letter to the Court. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 5/4/2023. (dlw) Modified on 5/4/2023 (dlw). (Entered: 05/04/2023)PACER Document
May 4, 2023Pro Hac Vice Attorney Ranjini Acharya for Biolase, Inc. added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (twk)PACER Document
May 4, 2023CORRECTING ENTRY: The Oral Order docketed at D.I. 15 has been updated to include Judge Noreika's patent procedures. (dlw)PACER Document
May 24, 2023ORAL ORDER - Consistent with this Court's procedures, the parties contacted Chambers to request a teleconference date for Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this motion is referred to Magistrate Judge Hatcher. The parties are directed to file Magistrate Judge Hatcher's "Motion for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery/Protective Order Disputes" which can be found at https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/judge/magistrate-judge-laura-d-hatcher, forms. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 5/24/2023. (dlw) (Entered: 05/24/2023)PACER Document
Jun 8, 2023Case Reassigned to Judge Jon P McCalla of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Please include the initials of the Judge (JPM) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb)PACER Document
Jun 9, 2023CORRECTING ENTRY: D.I. 21 main document replaced to reflect corrected Markman Hearing date of 07/19/2024. (smg)PACER Document
Jun 21, 2023Pro Hac Vice Attorneys Marko R. Zoretic, John B. Sganga, and Sheila N. Swaroop for PIPstek, LLC added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (twk)PACER Document
Jul 5, 2023ORAL ORDER: Consistent with United States District Court Judge Jon P. McCalla's June 30, 2023 Order (D.I. 27), the parties are requested to provide updated availability for a teleconference regarding Plaintiff's motion to strike. ORDERED by Judge Laura D. Hatcher on 7/5/23. (kjk) (Entered: 07/05/2023)PACER Document
Jul 5, 2023ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Motion for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute (D.I. 17, 30). A discovery dispute teleconference is scheduled for July 12, 2023 at 3:30 PM Eastern Time before Judge Laura D. Hatcher. On or before July 7, 2023, by 10:00AM, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on those issues. By no later than July 10, 2023, at 3:00PM, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed 3 pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition. Counsel is reminded to promptly provide courtesy copies. Counsel shall send dial-in information directly to the Court, no later than 24 hours prior to the hearing, using the following e-mail address: [email protected]. The Court may choose to resolve the dispute prior to the telephone conference and will, in that event cancel the conference.. ORDERED by Judge Laura D. Hatcher on 7/5/23. (kjk) (Entered: 07/05/2023)PACER Document
Jul 11, 2023ORAL ORDER Having reviewed the letters submitted in connection with the pending Motion for Teleconference to Resolve Discovery Dispute (D.I. 17, 30, 32, 33), it is hereby ordered that PIPStek, LLCs motion to strike Biolase Inc.s Affirmative Defense Nos. 4, 9, 11, and 12 is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. As a general matter, motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are disfavored. Fesnak & Assocs., LLP v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn, 722 F. Supp. 2d 496, 502 (D. Del. 2010) (citations omitted). A court should not grant a motion to strike a defense from a pleading unless it is clearly insufficient. Celgene Corp. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, No. 14-571-RGA, 2015 WL 8023233, at *2 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2015). Therefore, when ruling on a motion to strike, the court construes all facts in favor of the non-moving party. Fesnak, 722 F. Supp. at 502. Affirmative Defense No. 4 contains sufficient factual detail to place PIPStek on notice of the grounds for the defenses. The parties dispute to some extent whether this affirmative defense is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, or 9(b), or both. (D.I. 33 at 1, n.2 ([t]he cases PIPStek cite do not require Biolases equitable defenses to be pled with particularity under Rule 9(b))). I need not decide now whether all the defenses therein rely on allegations sounding in fraud because I find that, even if they do, this affirmative defense satisfies the respective required elements and Rule 9(b). For each of the contained defenses, Biolase identifies, with sufficient detail, who is alleged to have engaged in the conduct, when they did so, what that conduct consists of, as well as appropriate reliance and knowledge. (D.I. 12 at 78). In general, Biolase provides significantly more factual bases for the defenses contained therein than the conclusory allegations devoid of factual detail found in cases where the Court has granted a motion to strike. See e.g., Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc., No. 14-1330-RGA-MPT, 2016 WL 4249493 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 14-1330-RGA, 2016 WL 4581078 (D. Del. Sept. 1, 2016). Given the disfavor with which courts approach motions under Rule 12(f), I find the level of factual detail here sufficient. For Affirmative Defense No. 9, preclusion of costs under 35 U.S.C. § 288, I follow the other cases in this district that have required a determination of invalidity prior to the commencement of a suit. See Sonos, 2016 WL 4249493, at *4. Because Biolase does not even allege an invalidity finding, this affirmative defense is insufficient as a matter of law. For Affirmative Defense No. 12, Biolase explains that it is pleaded to reserve its rights if PIPStek asserts an infringement theory based on the doctrine of equivalents, and that it is waived if not asserted. Neither party cited in-district cases or binding precedent applicable to an analogous situation. And, if PIPStek does not assert infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents, this affirmative defense is rendered moot, resulting in no prejudice to PIPStek. Considering that motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are disfavored, I cannot say on this record that this defense is clearly insufficient and should be struck. Defendant has agreed to withdraw Affirmative Defense No. 11, so I do not address its sufficiency here. The teleconference scheduled for July 12, 2023 is CANCELLED. Ordered by Judge Laura D. Hatcher on 7/11/23. (kjk) (Entered: 07/11/2023)PACER Document
Aug 23, 2023Pro Hac Vice Attorneys Matthew M. Lubozynski, Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr for PIPstek, LLC added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (twk)PACER Document
Nov 8, 2024CORRECTING ENTRY: The Notice of Removal filed at D.I. 92 and its companion exhibit filed at D.I. 93 both entered on 11/8/2024, have been removed from the docket. Counsel was instructed to refile a Motion to Remove. The $405.00 filing fee paid which is a requirement for new cases only will be refunded. (nms)PACER Document