A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for date: 2023

Judge Williams Joins the Other D. Del. Judges in Limiting Parties to 10 Claim Terms

Andrew E. Russell, June 26, 2023
Markman Briefing 10 terms

Caution Warning
Bernd Dittrich, Unsplash

We've written a lot about the common D. Del. practice of limiting parties to 10 claim terms per case (at least for the Markman hearing).

We talked about a similar order from Judge Andrews earlier this month, and previous orders by Judges Connolly, Noreika, and Burke. Now, Judge Williams has set the same limit, in at least one action:

ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 96), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court will construe a maximum of ten (10) terms/term sets during the August 1, 2023 Claim Construction Hearing. The parties shall meet and confer and, no later than July 17, 2023, the parties shall file …
View

A Handy Reminder that LR 16.4(b) Exists (Be Careful About Those Stips Extending the Fact Discovery Deadline)

Andrew E. Russell, June 23, 2023
Stipulation

Puzzle
Sigmund, Unsplash

As we've mentioned, Local Rule 16.4(b) must be one of the most frequently-forgotten local rules in the District of Delaware. It sets forth that a party must include certain things in a stipulation extending the fact discovery or trial dealine:

Unless otherwise ordered, a request for an extension of deadlines for completion of discovery or postponement of the trial shall be made by motion or stipulation prior to expiration of the date deadline, and shall include the following:
(a) The reasons for the request; and
(b) Either a supporting affidavit by the requesting counsel’s client or a certification that counsel has sent a copy of the request to the client.

LR 16.4.

I noted …

View

Someone Succesfully Redacted A Whole Exhibit Before Judge Andrews

Nathan R. Hoeschen, June 22, 2023
Redactions

It finally happened! It probably won't help you!

Sorry, it's all I've got today
Sorry, it's all I've got today AI-Generated, displayed with permission

We've discussed many times Judge Andrews' policy of rejecting filings that redact exhibits in their entirety. Typically he requires them to be resubmitted with more limited redactions and/or a declaration justifying continued sealing. More recently, we discussed a case where a party submitted the declaration at the same time as the redacted version. This seemed to work well enough -- the Court did not reject the filing -- but the exhibit in question was not actually redacted in its entirety.

This week that stalwart levy was breached for the first time.

The redacted document (D.I. 148 ) as supported by the …
View

Annual FBA Lunch: Court Discusses State of Court, Expansion of Judges in 2024

Andrew E. Russell, June 21, 2023
Annual Report Congestion

District Court Seal

The District of Delaware held its annual FBA luncheon today. The presentations were wonderful, as usual, and covered the typical topics. Here are some of the notable points from Chief Judge Connolly's presentation:

  • The state of the Court is excellent, and we are back to having a full bench.
  • The Court will be doing even better next year, when Judge Andrews is planning to take senior status but continue to take cases, which will effectively give the Court an additional judge.
  • The nomination process for filling Judge Andrews' seat once he takes senior status next year is proceeding "expeditiously."
  • The Court remains very busy:
    • It's the 4th busiest court by weighted case volume, although two of the higher-weighted courts …
View

Mavexar Transcript Released Into The Wild

Nathan R. Hoeschen, June 20, 2023
Redactions

A while back, I wrote a primer on how to go about requesting redactions to a hearing transcript. In short, after the reporter prepares the transcript, you'll get a docket entry like the below:

Screenshot 2023-06-20 203458
Me, displayed with permission

Under the Court's "Policy on the Electronic Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings," you need to file a motion to request redactions of anything other than specifically listed personally identifiable information (e.g., social security numbers, names of minor children, etc.).

We noted in that post that the deadline for filing such a motion wasn't clear but that it was "definitely a good idea" to move before the release of the transcript restriction.

Just today, however, Judge Connolly issued an order suggesting …

View

Objections Are Not Evidence

Nathan R. Hoeschen, June 18, 2023
RFAs Reargument

Judge Andrews issued an interesting opinion last week, in another case that breaks new ground on reconsideration. The (extremely) abridged and expurgated procedural history in MirTech, Inc. et al v. AgroFresh, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1170-RGA (D. Del. June 14, 2023) (Mem. Op.) is as follows:

  • Agrofresh moved for summary judgment on one of its counterclaims alleging breach of a settlement agreement requiring the plaintiffs to assign them several foreign patent applications
  • The plaintiffs responded by arguing that Agrofresh had actually dropped most of these claims. In support, they cited an RFA objection where Agrofresh argued that "[n]o claim or defense at issue in this lawsuit . . . relates to [the allegedly dropped applications]."
  • The Court denied …
View

Important Mechanical Note for Filings with Visiting Judges Kennelly and Wolson—And Maybe for All D. Del. Filings

Andrew E. Russell, June 15, 2023
Visiting Judges CM/ECF

At a hearing today, Judge Kennelly set forth his preferences on how parties files documents in CM/ECF. He explained that he deals with all filings electronically, and large exhibits as permitted by the Delaware CM/ECF system interfere with his work flow.

He threatened to deny motions going forward (at least in that case) if parties combine exhibits in that way, specifically pointing to the following docket item:

Judge Kennelly Example

As you can see in the highlight, the party combined multiple exhibits into sub-filings, which makes it difficult and slow to download, and impossible to download individual exhibits.

Judge Kennelly prefers that parties do it this way:

Judge Kennelly Example - Correct

Visiting Judge Wolson has expressed similar concerns for similar reasons, and his procedures go a step …

View

Answers to Some Common Questions About Joint Claim Construction Briefing in D. Del.

Andrew E. Russell, June 14, 2023
Joint Claim Construction Briefing Sandbagging

We're really starting to run out of good, free pictures of sand bags for these posts.
We're really starting to run out of good, free pictures of sand bags for these posts. Karen Barrett, Unsplash

At this point, all of the D. Del. judges have adopted a joint claim construction brief procedure invented by Judge Andrews, where the parties serve opening, answering, reply, and surreply briefs, and then file a single combined joint claim construction brief that presents the arguments term-by-term. This means that the parties and the Court can work from a final, combined joint brief where all of the arguments match up.

This is a great procedure and everyone seems to like it. Certain questions tend to come up about it, though.

Common Questions on the Joint Claim Construction Brief

First, parties …

View

A Motion to Reconsider A Motion For Leave To File a Motion To Reconsider A Motion To Reconsider

Nathan R. Hoeschen, June 13, 2023
Reconsideration

I've read it four times now, and I'm pretty sure the title of this post is correct. But for those who want to follow the byzantine history of the recently (and one must imagine finally) denied motion for reconsideration in PACT XPP Schweiz AG v. Intel Corporation, C.A. No. 19-1006-JDW (D. Del. June 9, 2023), the current state of play is:

  • March 24 - the Court Grants summary judgment of noninfringement of one of the patents in suit
  • March 29 - the plaintiff moves for reconsideration
  • April 17 - The Court denies the motion for reconsideration
  • May 10 - as part of a larger brief, Plaintiff requests leave to file a second motion for reconsideration
  • May 17 - …
View

Thoughts On the Mavexar "Mansplaining Brief," Which Accuses the Court of "Gender Harassment and Intimidation"

Andrew E. Russell, June 12, 2023
Mavexar Reconsideration

"Sure, I had my LLC sue a bunch of people in Delaware, but I didn't think the Court would actually make me GO there." Andrew Russell, CC BY 2.0

I guess our post about the Mavexar hearing last week was remiss in failing to talk about the "mansplaining brief." I've had a couple of people ask me about it. Here is the background and some quick thoughts.

Chief Judge Connolly Orders Mavexar-LLC's Sole Member to Testify In Person

The short version of the leadup: Mavexar is an entity that creates LLCs to assert patents against tech companies for quick settlements, often in Delaware. The LLCs take all of the risk, and Mavexar keeps 90-95% of the profits while hiding its …

View
Newer
Older

Archive