As we've discussed at length, judges in the District of Delaware will usually let parties stipulate to reasonable adjustments to the case schedule, within certain limitations (including that stipulating to change the dispositive motion deadline may in some instances lead to the loss of the parties' trial date).
So it's always interesting to see when a stipulation is denied. In Osteoplastics, LLC v. Conformis, Inc., C.A. No. 20-405-MN-JLH (D. Del.), just before the close of fact discovery, the parties stipulated to a roughly 5 month delay in the remainder of the case. As the parties explain in the stip, the purpose of the delay is to provide the Court time to rule on objections to the Magistrate Judge's claim construction R&R:
WHEREAS several upcoming case deadlines are impacted by any rulings by the District Court on the objections to Magistrate Judge Hall’s Report and Recommendation regarding claim construction, such as final invalidity contentions, expert reports, case dispositive motions, and any supplemental infringement contentions for which the Court grants leave; . . . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED . . .
Judge Noreika denied the stip in a succinct order, requiring that the parties offer alternative contentions and expert opinions:
ORAL ORDER re . . . STIPULATION TO EXTEND Remaining Case Deadlines to Various Dates - Having reviewed the parties' proposed stipulation seeking to extend the schedule by five months because the district court has not yet ruled on the parties' competing objections to Judge Hall's claim construction Report and Recommendation addressing thirteen terms, the stipulation is DENIED. The Court will address the objections in due course. Until that time, the parties should proceed with contentions, expert discovery, etc. using all proposed constructions to the extent they have contentions based on any such proposal.
This is consistent with other recent orders from Judge Noreika, which have sometimes required parties to proceed through other portions of the case before receiving rulings on claim construction.
This practice is not new in Delaware. For example, at one point former Judge Robinson's form scheduling order set argument on claim construction and summary judgment for the same time, after expert reports and discovery were complete. This meant that the Judge could rule on claim construction with the full context of the disputes but, of course, required the parties to offer contentions and expert discovery under each alternative proposed construction.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
