Diogenes Ltd

General

Total Cases9

Active Cases2

Patents19

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

PTAB

diogenes-verlag

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

L4

A

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
05/15/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	The following patents were Instituted by PTAB: Patent US11200779 in IPR2023-00268
03/20/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, re [164] Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Dismissal of Certain Asserted Patent Claims. Plaintiffs only remaining cause of action is Count VIII, related to the United States Patent No 11,200,779. The stipulated stay shall remain in place. Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 3/20/2024. (ceg) (Entered: 03/20/2024)
03/18/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION of Dismissal of Certain Asserted Patent Claims, by DraftKings Inc. (Cucuzzella, Lucinda) Modified on 3/18/2024 (ceg). (Entered: 03/18/2024)
03/04/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	Letters Rogatory have been signed/Sealed and are ready for pick up in the Clerk's Office. (Attachments: # [1] Letters Rog)(dlb) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
03/04/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed Defendant's two pending motions ("the motions") for issuance of a letter of request to relevant authorities in the United Kingdom and Ireland respectively, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28 and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "Hague Convention"), which request certain discovery from third parties Bet Angel Limited ("Bet Angel"), (D.I. 89), and Flutter Entertainment plc ("Flutter"), (D.I. 91). It has also reviewed the briefing related to the motions (and because the briefing is nearly identical, will mainly cite herein to the briefing related to D.I. 89). (D.I. 90; D.I. 92; D.I. 96; D.I. 97; D.I. 99; D.I. 100) Having done so, and having considered the relevant legal standards, which are favorable to Defendant, the Court concludes that Defendant has met its "not great" burden, see, e.g., Tulip Computs. Int'l B.V. v. Dell Comput. Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 469, 474 (D. Del. 2003), such that both motions are GRANTED. The Court so concludes for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs' challenge to the motions was entirely based on the application of the "international comity" factors set out in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 544 n.28 (1987). (See D.I. 97 at 1) But all of those factors go Defendant's way or, at worst for Defendant, are neutral.; (2) As to the first factor regarding the "importance to the litigation" of the information at issue, the information sought relates to what both parties agree is a key piece of prior art in the case, the Betfair system. Plaintiffs thus acknowledge that some of the requests at issue are relevant to the case (i.e., to certain invalidity and inequitable conduct issues at play). (Id. at 12) As to the rest, Plaintiffs' suggestion that the "technical documentation" sought would be irrelevant because it does not demonstrate how the Betfair system amounts to prior art, (id. at 12-13), is off point because Defendant needs to establish how that system actually worked in order to show how it reads on the asserted claim limitations. And Plaintiffs' suggestion that this information is irrelevant because the system cannot be prior art under pre-AIA Section 102, (id. at 13-14), simply presumes that Plaintiffs will prevail on a disputed legal issue in the case, (D.I. 99 at 3), which the Court cannot do at this stage.; (3) As to the second factor regarding the degree of specificity of the requests, Plaintiffs here criticize only the requests' occasional use of the term "if any[.]" (D.I. 97 at 14-15) But as Defendant notes, such language seems meant only to allude to the fact that the requestee may not have kept relevant documents in its possession for this long (and not to uncertainty as to whether such relevant documents would otherwise exist). (D.I. 99 at 9); (4) As to the third factor regarding "whether the information originated in the United States," there seems to be no dispute that it did not. (D.I. 97 at 15) Yet contrary to Plaintiffs' position, it appears that (at least based on the current record), this factor would favor Defendant, as the Hague Convention provides the only means of compelling discovery from foreign third parties Bet Angel and Flutter. See Tulip Computs. Int'l, 254 F. Supp. 2d at 474 ("When discovery is sought from a non-party in a foreign jurisdiction, application of the Hague [Evidence] Convention, which encompasses principles of international comity, is virtually compulsory.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Antamex Int'l, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., Civil No. 20-15232 (JHR/AMD), 2022 WL 20679662, at 7 (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2022); Axtria, Inc. v. OKS Grp., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-cv-6424, 2021 WL 6136600, at 3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021).; (5) As to the fourth factor, regarding the availability of alternative means of securing the information, Plaintiffs argue that about "half" of the requests would be duplicative of information in their possession or in the possession of the inventor, Mr. Maratelli. (D.I. 97 at 10-12) Defendant acknowledges this could be so, but makes the good point that Plaintiffs had months to produce such documents to Defendant before these motions were filed and did not do so, (D.I. 99 at 6-7), such that Plaintiffs haven't pointed the Court to one produced document that is actually redundant of an aspect of the requests. In these circumstances, the Court finds this factor to be about neutral.; and (6) The fifth factor in part asks whether the request would undermine important interests of the United States. On this front (and with regard to their related argument about the untimeliness of the requests), Plaintiffs suggest that Defendant unduly delayed in seeking the information, such that granting the request would have a detrimental impact on the case schedule. (D.I. 97 at 3-7, 15) The delay issue is disputed, (D.I. 99 at 3-6), but the Court need not resolve it, because subsequent to the filing of the motions, the parties agreed to stay the case (other than as to seeking foreign discovery) pending completion of inter partes review proceedings, (D.I. 153). This essentially rendered moot any of Plaintiffs' concerns in this regard. And as to the part of this factor that asks whether the request would undermine important interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland, the Court has no basis to conclude that it would. Defendant effectively rebutted Plaintiffs' concern that the requests seek personal information of third parties, (D.I. 99 at 10), and the Court sees no other viable concern having been raised in this regard. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/4/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 03/04/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed Defendant's two pending motions ("the motions") for issuance of a letter of request to relevant authorities in the United Kingdom and Ireland respectively, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28 and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "Hague Convention"), which request certain discovery from third parties Bet Angel Limited ("Bet Angel"), (D.I. 89), and Flutter Entertainment plc ("Flutter"), (D.I. 91). It has also reviewed the briefing related to the motions (and because the briefing is nearly identical, will mainly cite herein to the briefing related to D.I. 89). (D.I. 90; D.I. 92; D.I. 96; D.I. 97; D.I. 99; D.I. 100) Having done so, and having considered the relevant legal standards, which are favorable to Defendant, the Court concludes that Defendant has met its "not great" burden, see, e.g., Tulip Computs. Int'l B.V. v. Dell Comput. Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 469, 474 (D. Del. 2003), such that both motions are GRANTED. The Court so concludes for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs' challenge to the motions was entirely based on the application of the "international comity" factors set out in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 544 n.28 (1987). (See D.I. 97 at 1) But all of those factors go Defendant's way or, at worst for Defendant, are neutral.; (2) As to the first factor regarding the "importance to the litigation" of the information at issue, the information sought relates to what both parties agree is a key piece of prior art in the case, the Betfair system. Plaintiffs thus acknowledge that some of the requests at issue are relevant to the case (i.e., to certain invalidity and inequitable conduct issues at play). (Id. at 12) As to the rest, Plaintiffs' suggestion that the "technical documentation" sought would be irrelevant because it does not demonstrate how the Betfair system amounts to prior art, (id. at 12-13), is off point because Defendant needs to establish how that system actually worked in order to show how it reads on the asserted claim limitations. And Plaintiffs' suggestion that this information is irrelevant because the system cannot be prior art under pre-AIA Section 102, (id. at 13-14), simply presumes that Plaintiffs will prevail on a disputed legal issue in the case, (D.I. 99 at 3), which the Court cannot do at this stage.; (3) As to the second factor regarding the degree of specificity of the requests, Plaintiffs here criticize only the requests' occasional use of the term "if any[.]" (D.I. 97 at 14-15) But as Defendant notes, such language seems meant only to allude to the fact that the requestee may not have kept relevant documents in its possession for this long (and not to uncertainty as to whether such relevant documents would otherwise exist). (D.I. 99 at 9); (4) As to the third factor regarding "whether the information originated in the United States," there seems to be no dispute that it did not. (D.I. 97 at 15) Yet contrary to Plaintiffs' position, it appears that (at least based on the current record), this factor would favor Defendant, as the Hague Convention provides the only means of compelling discovery from foreign third parties Bet Angel and Flutter. See Tulip Computs. Int'l, 254 F. Supp. 2d at 474 ("When discovery is sought from a non-party in a foreign jurisdiction, application of the Hague [Evidence] Convention, which encompasses principles of international comity, is virtually compulsory.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Antamex Int'l, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., Civil No. 20-15232 (JHR/AMD), 2022 WL 20679662, at 7 (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2022); Axtria, Inc. v. OKS Grp., LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-cv-6424, 2021 WL 6136600, at 3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021).; (5) As to the fourth factor, regarding the availability of alternative means of securing the information, Plaintiffs argue that about "half" of the requests would be duplicative of information in their possession or in the possession of the inventor, Mr. Maratelli. (D.I. 97 at 10-12) Defendant acknowledges this could be so, but makes the good point that Plaintiffs had months to produce such documents to Defendant before these motions were filed and did not do so, (D.I. 99 at 6-7), such that Plaintiffs haven't pointed the Court to one produced document that is actually redundant of an aspect of the requests. In these circumstances, the Court finds this factor to be about neutral.; and (6) The fifth factor in part asks whether the request would undermine important interests of the United States. On this front (and with regard to their related argument about the untimeliness of the requests), Plaintiffs suggest that Defendant unduly delayed in seeking the information, such that granting the request would have a detrimental impact on the case schedule. (D.I. 97 at 3-7, 15) The delay issue is disputed, (D.I. 99 at 3-6), but the Court need not resolve it, because subsequent to the filing of the motions, the parties agreed to stay the case (other than as to seeking foreign discovery) pending completion of inter partes review proceedings, (D.I. 153). This essentially rendered moot any of Plaintiffs' concerns in this regard. And as to the part of this factor that asks whether the request would undermine important interests of the United Kingdom or Ireland, the Court has no basis to conclude that it would. Defendant effectively rebutted Plaintiffs' concern that the requests seek personal information of third parties, (D.I. 99 at 10), and the Court sees no other viable concern having been raised in this regard. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/4/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
02/27/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	Remark: Certified copies of D.I. [161] Letter of Request available for pickup at the Clerk's Office, open Monday-Friday, 08:30am-4:00pm. (smg) (Entered: 02/27/2024)
02/27/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	LETTER of Request for International Judicial Assistance (Letter of Request - WHG (International) Limited). Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/26/2024. (smg) (Main Document 161 replaced on 2/27/2024 to include Court Seal. NEF regenerated.) (smg). (Entered: 02/27/2024)
02/22/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED D.I. [159] Unopposed MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory filed by DraftKings Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/22/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 02/22/2024)
02/20/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	MOTION REFERRED: [159] Unopposed MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory. Motion referred to Christopher J. Burke.(ceg) (Entered: 02/20/2024)
02/15/24	Diogenes Ltd v. Draftkings Inc 1:21-CV-01695 ( D. DE )	OPENING BRIEF in Support re [159] Unopposed MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory filed by DraftKings Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 2/29/2024. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibits A-D)(Cucuzzella, Lucinda) (Entered: 02/15/2024)