Last month we wrote about Chief Judge Connolly's comments on the "sad reality" of referrals of SJ motions to a magistrate judge in patent cases:
[T]he sad reality in patent cases filed in this district is that a referral of a summary judgment motion [for an R&R] pursuant to § 636(b)(l)(B) inevitably results in objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, which the district court judge must review de novo. Such a referral therefore ends up doubling the amount of judicial resources needed to resolve the summary judgment motion in question. For that reason, I no longer make § 636(b)(l)(B) referrals of summary judgment motions in patent cases to a magistrate judge.
He noted at the time that, if the parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction—such that any appeal would go directly to an appellate court—he would refer the cases.
Since then, the parties did in fact consent. Shortly thereafter, the case was re-assigned to Judge Andrews, who last week granted leave to file the early summary judgment motion (regarding a license defense) and referred it to Magistrate Judge Burke.
ORAL ORDER: The request for leave to file an early summary judgment motion, which shall be referred on consent to Magistrate Judge Burke (D.I. 74 ) is GRANTED.
The takeaway is that consenting to magistrate jurisdiction for an early summary judgment motion may increase the chances that the court will grant a motion for leave to file early summary judgment.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
