I am not, as a rule, a giggler.
However, the timeline of events below—relatable in their banality, painful in their recounting—did elicit an ungentlemanly outburst when I read it this morning.
August 16 - Judge Hall holds a hearing on a 101 motion in Innovative Memory Systems Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc., C.A. No. 14-1480-RGA-JLH
August 17 - The defendant submits a succinct, 1-page, notice of subsequent authority, citing a recent 101 opinion from Judge Andrews.
August 19 - Plaintiff files a 1.5 page response to the notice
August 29 - Defendant responds with a 1.5 page response to the response (sur-response?)
August 31 - Plaintiff responds again about this same opinion (a sur-sur-response?)
September 6 - The plaintiff submits its own 1.5-page notice of subsequent authority citing a different 101 opinion from Judge Andrews
September 7 - The defendant submitted a 2.5-page response to plaintiff's notice of subsequent authority
September 7 - Judge Hall issues the following order:
The parties shall stop submitting notices of every new opinion from this district relating to patent-eligibility under § 101. Unless relevant binding authority issues from the Federal Circuit or Supreme Court, parties must seek leave before filing any further notices of subsequent authority. All accompanying cover letters (D.I. 353-358) are STRICKEN
Innovative Memory Systems Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc., C.A. No. 14-1480-RGA-JLH, D.I. 359 (D. Del. Sept. 7, 2022) (Oral Order).
It's tough to say where exactly the parties jumped the shark with this exchange. Maybe it was increasing length. Maybe it was the sur-sur-responses. Maybe it was the continued citation to literally every 101 opinion Judge Andrews issued since the § 101 hearing.
Now, I understand the impulse of the litigants here—we all want to get the last word. But this order should stand as a reminder that there is a bridge too far.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
