Yesterday, the Court dismissed a case where the plaintiff failed to list a related case involving one of the same patents in the civil cover sheet (one of several documents required for a new case). Witricity Corp. v. Ideanomics, Inc., C.A. No. 24-895-JLH, D.I. 15 (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2024).
The first case was assigned to visiting Judge Goldberg, who had stayed it. When the plaintiff filed the second case, it did not list the first case in the cover sheet, and the Court randomly assigned the second case to Judge Hall.
The defendant in the second case smartly informed the Court of the issue by filing a short "Notice Regarding Related Case" that set out the background and briefly argued that the case should be before Judge Goldberg. Id., D.I. 11 at 1-2.
Plaintiff responded by disagreeing that the second case "is in any way related" to the first because it "does not involve the same patents"—even though plaintiff simultaneously admitted that one of the same patents is asserted in both cases. It also argued that it would be prejudiced by the reassignment to Judge Goldberg because he'd likely stay the case, like he did for the first case. Id., D.I. 12 at 1-2.
This did not go over well with Judge Hall:
Plaintiff . . . filed a “statement,” which argues – erroneously – that this case is not related to the case in front of Judge Goldberg because, among other reasons, Judge Goldberg’s case “involves seven (7) asserted patents and this Lawsuit involves five (5) asserted patents” and “only one of these twelve asserted patents overlaps.” (D.I. 12.) Plaintiff’s “notice” also sets forth one reason why it does not want this case assigned to Judge Goldberg: because that case “is currently stayed and WiTricity expects Defendants to likewise request that this Lawsuit be stayed if it is reassigned.” (Id.)
An apparent concern about how a particular judge will rule is not an excuse to not follow Local Rule 3.1. Failure to comply with the Local Rule unnecessarily wastes numerous judicial resources, including time spent by the Court policing the rule.
The Court has a strong interest in ensuring that Local Rule 3.1 is enforced. Adequate deterrence of violations requires the Court to order consequences beyond just reassignment of the case. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice to refile. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this case, it must be refiled, and the civil cover sheet must comply with Local Rule 3.1. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.
Id., D.I. 15 at 2.
As the Court notes, plaintiff is free to refile. All it lost for now is about a months' worth of time and damages, as well as the minor filing fee and the probably-not-all-that-large amount of fees it will take to re-file. Of course, this could also be part of an argument for an exceptional case finding down the line, if the defendant ultimately prevails (although it may not be enough to support such a finding on its own).
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
