Case Activity (2593)

1. Order | Filed: September 16, 2026 | Entered: September 16, 2026 OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v. RE Secured Networks, LLC

   Patent | Delaware

   Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

   MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Court has reviewed Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff RE Secured Networks, LLC's ("Defendant") discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 208 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 202 ; D.I. 210 ; D.I. 221 ). The Court hereby ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. The current pre-trial conference and trial dates are VACATED. The parties shall provide a joint status report to the Court on this subject matter, including an attached proposed new Scheduling Order that leads up to a new proposed trial date, and shall do so by no later than September 23, 2026. (See Memorandum Order for further details.) Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 09/15/2026. (sam)

2. Order | Filed: September 11, 2026 | Entered: September 11, 2026 OmniVision Technologies, Inc. v. RE Secured Networks, LLC

   Patent | Delaware

   Order on Motion to Strike

   ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of the report of Defendant’s expert Dr. L. Richard Carley regarding infringement (“Motion”), (D.I. 226 ), the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 226 -1; D.I. 230 ; D.I. 235 ), and having considered Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37, hereby ORDERS as follows with regard to the remaining portion of the Motion, which relates to Issues #3(a), #3(b), #3(c) and #3(d):  (1) The Court takes up Issues #3(b) and #3(d) first.  As to both requests there, the Court cannot find the content at issue in Dr. Carley’s report to be untimely, and so the requests are DENIED.  Defendant in its answering brief claimed, inter alia, that the content at issue wasn’t untimely because Plaintiff itself untimely produced certain material that was both necessary to and related to these opinions—in that Plaintiff purportedly produced this material only after Final Infringement Contentions (“FICs”) were due.  (D.I. 230 at 3, 4)  In its reply brief, so far as the Court can see, Plaintiff did not directly respond to this argument as to Issue #3(b).  (D.I. 235 at 2)  With Plaintiff leaving unchallenged one of Defendant’s responsive arguments on that issue, the Court cannot find the relevant disclosure untimely.  As to Issue #3(d), Plaintiff seems to acknowledge that it produced source code relating to the relevant infringement theory for the first time after the FIC deadline, (D.I. 231 , ex. I at 1; D.I. 235 at 2), and in the Court’s view, Defendant’s reaction to that late production—i.e., to relatively quickly thereafter articulate how that code supports an infringement theory relating to “simple CIP” functionality—does not amount to an untimely disclosure.; (2) The Court next takes up Issue #3(c).  There, Plaintiff’s request to strike is GRANTED.  The gist of Plaintiff’s argument was that Dr. Carley’s opinions as to the '274 patent and a “non-constant work function” were untimely because:  (a) in his expert report, Dr. Carley identified two n-type regions as being key to the infringement read and identifies “a never previously disclosed theory based on n-type doping overlaps with an already highly doped transfer gate[;]”; (b) whereas, in Defendant’s FICs, Defendant had previously presented a theory based on two regions having different p-types.  (D.I. 226 -1 at 3 (emphasis added))  And in response, Defendant never really answered this particular criticism of the new infringement theory head on.  (D.I. 230 at 4; D.I. 235 at 2 (Plaintiff noting this))  So the new disclosure does seem untimely.  And for similar reasons to those set out in the Court’s prior Order, the Pennypack factors would not save this late disclosure.  (D.I. 355 ); and (3) Lastly, the Court takes up Issue #3(a), which was the most difficult issue.  This issue seems to turn on whether the infringement opinions set out in Dr. Carley’s report as to the “variable voltage circuitry” limitation in the '671 patent are meaningfully different from the positions on that score set out in Defendant’s FICs.  The Co... (truncated)

3. 2591 additional result(s)