A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for date: September 2020

Chief Judge Stark Reschedules Xcoal Trial, Says "This District Hopes and Expects to Resume Jury Trials . . . This Month"

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 8, 2020
Litigation COVID-19

Artists' rendering of the anonymous letter
Artists' rendering of the anonymous letter Brando Makes Branding, Unsplash

Chief Judge Stark today rescheduled the Xcoal trial for Wednesday of next week. The trial was previously derailed following receipt of an anonymous letter just after opening statements.

The opinion (embedded below) has a great summary of the facts of the trial so far, which are very unusual.

In resuming the trial quickly, he hoped to deter others from sending similar "anonymous letters" to interfere with other trials. He also noted that this is the only time the Court will have available for bench trials in the near future, because of the backlog of criminal and civil jury trials which should start back this month:

[T]his District hopes and …
View

Rothschild Covenant Not to Sue Made Public, Purported to Cover Everyone Who Uses Open Source Software

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 8, 2020
OSS CNS

Well this is interesting. It's an article by a non-attorney about the GNOME foundation's fight against a suit by a Rothschild NPE. The article links to the settlement agreement and characterizes it as including a covenant not to sue from all Rothschild entities against anyone based on the use of software licensed under all of the biggest open-source licenses.

Last year, a Rothschild entity sued the GNOME foundation for infringement by its product GNOME, which is a well-known open-source component of many GNU/Linux- and Unix-based operating systems.

The parties settled in May 2020, and the press releases and news reports at the time suggested that the settlement protected other open source software from future Rothschild suits.

Now that we …

View

No expert? No problem. Maybe.

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 7, 2020
Litigation Pennypack

Empty Chair
Giorgio Trovato, Unsplash

Sometimes people think that they have to offer expert testimony to rebut the other side's expert on every single issue. That's not true, at least when the other side has the burden of proof.

I've represented a defendant in a jury trial representing where we offered no damages expert at all, and it worked out well (under the circumstances—I'm definitely not saying it's a good general strategy). We poked holes in the opposing expert's theories, and the other side had no way to return fire and no reply report in which the fix the issues.

Judge Andrews addressed something like that last week in an opinion on a motion in limine. Defendant had offered expert …

View

New Standard for Striking a Theory from a Rebuttal Expert Report

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2020
Pennypack Discovery

Stop Sign
Luke van Zyl, Unsplash

This week, Judge Burke issued an interesting oral order on a discovery dispute about the admissibility of "new" expert opinions in rebuttal reports.

In the order, he sets forth a simple baseline test for what a party has to show to strike purportedly "new" expert opinions in a rebuttal report. To succeed in striking a "new" theory, a party must show at least:

(a) how they clearly disclosed that theory well before final . . . contentions were due . . . ; (b) how the same theory was thereafter found in their opening expert reports . . . ; and (c) how [the opposing party] never provided any substantive response to that theory until …
View

Federal Circuit Holds That A Party Cannot Join Its Own Previous IPR Proceeding

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2020
IPR

The Federal Circuit's decision is below.

It found that even though the defendant did not receive an identification of asserted claims from the plaintiff until after the statutory IPR deadline, and even though the patents included a total of 830 claims, the statute did not allow the defendant to file a new IPR petition and then join it to its previous IPR proceeding as a way to add claims after the statutory filing deadline.

The Court recognized that the decision would result in wasted efforts by defendants in challenging claims unnecessarily:

We . . . recognize that our analysis here may lead defendants, in some circumstances, to expend effort and expense in challenging claims that may ultimately never be asserted …
View

Judge Andrews Is Allowing Only Two Attorneys Per Side for In-Person Trials

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 4, 2020
COVID-19

Judge Andrews noted this week that he is currently allowing only two attorneys per side for in-person bench trials, including for a trial scheduled to start on Sept. 14th, and that he "may insist on this practice for some time." Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Charter Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 17-1734-RGA, D.I. 545 at 2 (D. Del. September 2, 2020).

He also said that he "anticipate[s] a jury could be assembled for an October 5 trial," but did not want the first post-COVID-19 civil jury trial to be one that involves primarily out-of-town attorneys and personnel.

The trial at issue was ultimately delayed for other reasons, including the fact that there are still nine pending motions, and …

View

Judge Noreika Sets Procedure for In-Person Bench Trial Next Month

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 3, 2020
Trial COVID-19

Expert Witness Examines Evidence at Upcoming Bench Trial
Expert Witness Examines Evidence at Upcoming Bench Trial Ani Kolleshi, Unsplash

As the court moves closer and closer to resuming normal operations, Judge Noreika has released a new order describing the procedures for her first COVID-19 bench trial with live attorneys (although still remote witnesses).

TriMed, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., C.A. No 18-666-MN, was originally slated for a jury trial on September 14, 2020, but was converted to a bench trial on the same dates following a teleconference on July 30.

Other than the lack of in-person witnesses, the trial appears to be remarkably similar to a bench trial in the before-times, with the only major concessions to the pandemic being required masks, the use of electronic witness …

View

Judge Burke: Don't Just Say You're Burdened—Prove It

David M. Fry, Sept. 2, 2020
Discovery Dispute

Burden
Simon Migaj, Unsplash

Yesterday, Judge Burke ordered a plaintiff to collect documents from an additional custodian beyond the limit agreed to by the parties. But he also gave the plaintiff a road map for how they might have won with a little extra effort.

Judge Burke acknowledged that "the parties are not large companies, and that cost and burden were a factor in the parties' agreement to [a] seven-custodian limit in the first place."

But Plaintiff could have provided the Court with a record ... to help the Court conclude that the collection, search, review and production of [the custodian's] documents would be unduly burdensome or costly, or that it would be disproportionate to either the amount in controversy or …
View

District of Delaware Extends COVID-19 Ban on Jury Trials to Mid-September

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 1, 2020
COVID-19

The District of Delaware's previous standing order banning jury trials would have expired today, but the Court issued a new order extending Phase 1 (no jury trials) through September 14.

The Court is currently holding bench trials but not jury trials.

The previous extension moved the expiration date back six weeks, but this extension only moves the date back by only two weeks.

This shorter extension may indicate that the Court is gearing up to start dealing with the backlog of trials, although at least one judge indicated as recently as two weeks ago that he thought September jury trials were unlikely.

View

Judge Stark Declines to Construe Non-Claim Term

Jeff Castellano, Sept. 1, 2020
Claim Construction

During the claim construction process, parties identify and offer constructions for claim terms. It is not uncommon for parties to dispute the meaning of words within those constructions but which do not appear in the claims themselves, leading to further refinement of positions during subsequent claim construction exchanges and briefing. Parties may be tempted to ask the Court to separately resolve these "construction within a construction" disputes. Judge Stark recently addressed such a request.

View
Newer

Archive