New Directions Technology v. Abbott Laboratories - Patent Claims Dismissal Denied

D. Delaware Opinions

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The US District Court for the District of Delaware denied Abbott Laboratories Inc. and Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc.'s motion to dismiss 160 patent claims filed by New Directions Technology Consulting, LLC. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, finding the defendants' arguments regarding claim representativeness to be unpersuasive and conclusory.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware has denied a motion to dismiss 160 patent claims filed by New Directions Technology Consulting, LLC against Abbott Laboratories Inc. and Bigfoot Biomedical, Inc. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, rejecting the defendants' arguments that their representative claims analysis sufficiently demonstrated grounds for dismissal under Section 101. The judge noted deficiencies in the defendants' briefing, including exceeding page limits and providing conclusory arguments that failed to meet their burden of proof.

This decision means the patent litigation will proceed, with all 160 claims remaining active for further legal proceedings. Companies involved in patent disputes should ensure their motions and analyses are thorough, adhere to court rules regarding briefing and formatting, and clearly establish the representativeness of claims when arguing for dismissal. Failure to do so, as demonstrated in this case, can result in the denial of such motions, prolonging litigation and potentially leading to unfavorable outcomes.

What to do next

Review patent litigation strategies for adherence to court rules and clarity of arguments.
Ensure representative claim analyses in motions to dismiss are robust and well-supported.
Monitor ongoing patent litigation proceedings for potential industry precedents.

Source document (simplified)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

NEW DIRECTIONS TECHNOLOGY

CONSULTING, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC. and

BIGFOOT BIOMEDICAL, INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of a § 101 motion to dismiss four patents and 160 claims. (D.I. 19).

Defendants object that the Magistrate Judge ignored their representative claims analysis.

(D.I. 20). They point out that Plaintiff did not respond to it. Plaintiff says it did respond, but it cites about half its brief (D.I. 21 at 3, citing "D.I. 16 pp. 8-16") in support of that assertion. To be charitable, Plaintiff must not know what a representative claims analysis is, because it certainly does not address one on the cited pages.

So, Defendants win? No! The Magistrate Judge points out that Defendants supplemented their brief with a seven-page chart. (D.I. 19 at 2 & n.1). The Magistrate Judge states, correctly, that Defendants "circumvent[ ]" the briefing page limits of the Local Rules. [^1]

More significantly, the Magistrate Judge describes the briefing as "conclusory and largely unhelpful." (D.I. 19 at 2). I agree. It is Defendants' burden to show representativeness. Defendants failed. [^2]

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (D.I. 19) is ADOPTED. The motion to dismiss based on § 101 (D.I. 12) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of March 2026.

/s/ Richard G. Andrews
United States District Judge

[^1]: There are also Local Rules about font size. D.Del.LR 5.1.1(a) (12 point font for "[a]ll printed matter"). I do not think the exception for "[e]xhibits submitted for filing." D. Del. LR 5.1.1(b)(1), which appears to deal with pre-existing evidence, applies. Were the Magistrate Judge trying to load up on Defendants, she might have mentioned that the text of the seven additional pages is in what appears to be 8 point font. To give the reader an idea of what this looks like, I repeat the preceding sentence in 8 point font. Were the Magistrate Judge trying to load up on
Page 1 of 2

[^2]: Defendants, she might have mentioned that the text of the seven additional pages is in what appears to be 8 point font. Good luck reading this even if one's vision is 20-20.
I decline Defendants' suggestion that I decide their four representative claims and leave the other 156 for another day.
Page 2 of 2