Spotlight On Upcoming Oral Arguments ' August 2022

• Published date: 02 August 2022
• Subject Matter: Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark
• Law Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
• Author: Mr Abhinav Garg, Sarah Newbury and Taryn Willett'

The following arguments will be available to the public live. Access information will be available by 9 AM ET each day of argument at: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/.

Monday, August 1, 2022

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 21-1967, Courtroom 201

Arendi appeals from a District of Delaware decision granting LG's motion to dismiss. In 2012, Arendi sued LG for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 ("the '843 patent") ("Arendi I"). In Arendi I, after initially identifying 192 products that purportedly infringe the '843 patent, Arendi only provided infringement claim charts for one product, LG's Rebel 4 mobile phone, claiming that it was representative of all of the accused products. LG disagreed that the Rebel-4 product was representative, but the parties ultimately identified 8 devices that they agreed were representative of all of the accused products. Arendi did not, however, provide claim charts for the additional representative devices. When Arendi's expert proffered an infringement opinion on those other representative devices ("the Non-Rebel 4 Products") LG filed a motion to strike, which the district court granted.

In response, Arendi filed a second lawsuit accusing LG of infringement of the '843 patent based on the Non-Rebel 4 Products ("Arendi II"). The district court granted LG's motion to dismiss Arendi's complaint on the grounds that it violated the claim-splitting doctrine. Specifically, the Court opined that it understood that Arendi had dropped its infringement allegations against the Non-Rebel 4 products in Arendi I, and therefore was precluded by the claim-splitting doctrine from raising the same allegations in Arendi II.

Arendi contends that the claim-splitting doctrine only applies when the products are "essentially the same." Relying on the Federal Circuit's holding in Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., Arendi argues that a product is "essentially the same" only if the difference are "unrelated to the limitations in the claim of the patent." Arendi notes that LG asserted in Arendi I that the Non-Rebel 4 Products are materially different from the Rebel 4 product, which were the only products litigated in Arendi I. Arendi contends that the district court thus misapplied the claim-splitting doctrine, and its decision granting LG's motion to dismiss should be reversed.

LG contends that the claim-splitting doctrine is applicable because Arendi II involves the exact same patent and the exact same...