Over the summer, we posted twice about an interesting hearing in Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Systems, LLC, C.A. No. 18-1683-MN (D. Del.).
In the first post, we discussed how the Court sanctioned a party for misusing information that was designated under a protective order. In the second, we talked about how the defendant cleverly used PDF metadata to help show that the protective order violation took place.
Since then, the case has continued moving forward towards trial. It is set for a pretrial conference on Wednesday 11/5/2025, at 4:30 pm.
Another Alleged Protective Order Violation
Well, there were some further developments last week. In advance of the pretrial conference, the defendants filed a letter alleging that the inventor / testifying expert who was the subject of the last protective order violation has continued to violate the protective order. Id., D.I. 210.
The letter alleges that the inventor is prosecuting another of his own patent applications in the same field, and making substantive claim amendments, despite the protective order's prosecution bar. Id. at 1. The letter attaches an amendment seemingly signed by the inventor. Id., Ex. A.
As you may recall from our previous posts, the Court found that the inventor had violated the protective order by accessing information designated under that order, and sanctioned the party. The protective order in the case involves a prosecution bar that precludes anyone who has seen Attorney's Eyes Only information from prosecuting patents in a the same field.
The letter seeks "case-terminating sanctions" under FRCP 41 for this alleged repeat violation of the protective order.
Counsel for the inventor responded today, arguing that yes, the inventor signed the amendment, but that "he did not prosecute" the patent:
Defendant is making an incorrect assumption that [the inventor] prosecuted the ‘454 patent application RCE and response, which was submitted to the USPTO on October 27, 2025. However, another party prosecuted this ‘454 patent application RCE and response.
. . .
Although signed by [the inventor], he did not prosecute the ‘454 patent application [Request for Continued Examination] and response that was submitted on October 27, 2025.
Id., D.I. 221 at 6, 8.
The inventor's counsel also argued that the 21 pages of amendments were non-substantive, and that the information he reviewed was improperly designated, because it relates to "already publicly disclosed, commonly known information, and established technology." Id. at 4-5.
Another Interesting Hearing?
It looks like this issue is likely to be discussed at the pretrial conference on Wednesday at 4:30pm in courtroom 4A. It's possible that we may see some more fireworks—or it maybe not. Either way, it doesn't hurt to see a pretrial conference and get up to date on a judge's trial procedures.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
