This is something we've talked about before, but the blog is always picking up new readers, so I figured it's worth revisiting for the newcomers.
Yesterday, Judge Noreika denied a stipulation to extend the page limits for the briefing on a motion to dismiss from the default 20/20/10 (opening/answering/reply) to 30/30/10:
ORAL ORDER re 16 Stipulation Regarding Motion to Dismiss - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation is DENIED. The Court will not extend the page limits. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 11/12/2024. (dlw) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. v. Curium US LLC, C.A. NO. 24-1161-MN, D.I. 17 (D. Del. Nov. 12, 2024).
The stipulation had sought additional pages for motion to dismiss because the complaint asserted infringement of three different patents by four defendants. Obviously, the Court didn't see that as sufficient on its own to warrant additional pages.
I imagine the parties here were not surprised. When we last checked, it look like these stips are denied about 40% of the time. Here, it looks like the parties were smart, and filed the stip well before the deadline for the brief.
These stipulations often come up closer to the deadline for filing, when whoever is drafting the brief realizes that they need more space. But that doesn't leave time to file the stipulation, get the Court's reaction, and cut the brief down if need be (not to mention meeting-and-conferring, if necessary). It's better to file well in advance of the briefing deadline.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
