Missing a notice of appeal deadline is a nightmare scenario for an attorney. It's easy to imagine how it could happen: Final judgments can come at somewhat random times, and it's not a deadline that PACER flags for counsel. And, depending on how things go, it may be difficult or impossible to get the deadline extended. If that happens, that's it: your case may be over.
It looks like this nightmare almost played out in a recent District of Delaware case.
In Belden Canada ULC v. CommScope, Inc., C.A. No. 22-782-RGA (D. Del.), the Court entered a final judgment on October 14, 2025. The notice of appeal was due Thursday, November 13, 2025 …
I spent about an hour today looking for a new opinion to write about, all the while muttering to myself about how December's always a slow month for opinions, what with the many holidays and family get-togethers, to say nothing of the endless procession of time-themed ghosts with their wailing cries and clanking chains.
Humbug.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
My search was ultimately fruitless, but it did inspire me to check if December actually is a slow month for opinions, or if that's just something that seems like it ought to be true.
So I ran the numbers through Docket Navigator, counting all the opinions on contested motions from the start of last December (2024). The data is horrid—frequently the same opinion will appear multiple times leading to unpredictable overcounting—but the errors should all be in the same direction so it should be good enough for the purposes of sating my curiosity.
As it turns out, my intuition was pretty spot on.
The three months with the fewest opinions are all big vacation or holiday months:
December - 69
June - 67
November - 65
The months with the most opinions were a bit more surprising (although they were all clustered fairly close in the top half)
August - 113
July - 114
February - 116
So there you go—if you happen to be a legal blogger looking to take a month off to avoid the torments of Christmases past, present, and future, December is a good choice. But you had best be back by the February rush.
The case involved "skylight caps"—insulated covers for skylights. Apparently Wal-Mart needs around a million of them.Walmart, CC BY 2.0
Yesterday, Chief Judge Connolly issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction in Lennox AES Holdings LLC v. Benton, C.A. No. 25-575-CFC (D. Del.).
This contract case was originally filed in the Court of Chancery to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation provisions of an agreement related to the purchase of a business (or, at least, its assets).
The plaintiff is the business who purchased the assets. It filed suit in the Court of Chancery to stop the previous owner from selling certain kinds of products, which it alleged violated the agreement.
When a magistrate judge makes a ruling on a non-dispositive issue in a case, and a party objects, the ruling controls and remains effective until the objection is resolved:
8. Effect of Magistrate Judge Orders and Recommendations. Until a District Judge has completed his or her review of an objection to a Magistrate Judge's order or ruling on a nondispositive matter, such order or ruling shall govern further proceedings.
That means that, when you object to a notice of deposition of two of your own inventors on the basis of "burden" (and other grounds), and your burden objection unsurprisingly fails, the depositions have to go forward—even if you then file written objections to the magistrate judge's ruling.
That is, of course, unless the Court grants a motion to stay. That's what a patentee tried last week in Pierre Fabre Medicament SAS v. Rubicon Research Private Limited, C.A. No. 24-811-JLH-SRF (D. Del.).
After the Court ordered the patentee to make its inventors available for deposition by December 5, the patentee filed objections under FRCP 72, and simultaneously filed a motion to stay the order pending resolution of the objections.
However, all motions in the case were referred to Magistrate Judge Fallon, the judge to whom they were objecting. And the standard for a stay under these circumstances requires satisfying several factors, one of which is a likelihood of success on the merits. The "merits" of the objections, here, require showing that the Judge's holding is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law."
It has been a while since we have posted about them, but multiple D. Del. judges have held omnibus hearings to resolve multiple § 101 motions at once, called § 101 days.
Here is my co-blogger Nate's description of District of Delaware § 101 days from one of his posts a few years ago:
The 101 day has been the highlight of the Delaware patent law hearing calendar for many years now. It's an all-day no-holds-barred marathon where questions can come to any party at any time. And the best part is, you can look forward to a decision at the end of the day. It is our Super Bowl and our debutante ball all …
PACER is moving towards multi-factor authentication (MFA). I've seen the popups, and I've heard from others that they have as well (although I've also heard that the rollout is being delayed due to "issues").
This new policy has induced some concerns among attorneys because, in many firms, multiple paralegals manage the PACER accounts for multiple attorneys, and use them for filings. The thought of juggling MFA codes under those circumstances sounds kind of horrifying.
But fear not! It's actually super simple if you are already using a password management app like 1Password, as many are.
You Should Probably Be Using a Password Management App Regardless
I am not a cyber-security expert by any stretch, but the commonadvice is …
The blog was on hiatus for a few weeks back in early September while I was out for a brief baby break, a period which included an important opinion from Judge Andrews. He granted a motion to dismiss a DTSA claim that relied on inevitable disclosure, holding that inevitable disclosure is not a cognizable harm under the DTSA:
I find that, to the extent FICO relies on the inevitable disclosure doctrine to plead threatened misappropriation, FICO has failed to state a claim under the DTSA. Dr. Bastert is bound by multiple agreements that bar him from disclosing FICO's trade secrets to his new employer. (D.I. 1 131). That Dr. Bastert only provided FICO with a …
Fun fact, I just spent about 20 minutes trying to get this post to go live, while the server gave me an obtuse error message. It was only after I got frustrated enough to actually restart my computer that I realized the problem was I had already used my stupid pun title in another post.
So I apologize for the inferior pun, it was all I had left to give.
Today's case is a rather unusual stay opinion in Sphere USA, LLC v. The Gillette Company LLC, C.A. No. 23-1093-CFC, D.I. 32 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2025). We've mentioned in the past how IPR stays are becoming increasingly common,Ex parte reexam stays, …
Fun fact! If your attorney bills $450/hr in .1 hr increments and does nothing but take your $40 and hand it to a deponent, the bill to do so may cost you more than the $40 fee itself.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
When it comes to IP cases in federal court, dealing with subpoenas can be a bit out of the ordinary.
It's not that they never come up. It's normal to have a couple of subpoenas per side in cases that make it to the close of fact discovery (e.g., for prior art, third party inventors, etc.), sometimes more. But not all cases make it to that stage, and many cases don't involve any subpoenas at all.
It also doesn't take much manpower to fill out a form subpoena. It's a task often given to newer associates or paralegals. More senior attorneys may not get involved in the service process at all, unless something goes wrong.
That said, it's easier than you might think for something to go wrong. The rules governing subpoenas are pretty archaic and weird compared to the rest of the federal rules. FRCP 45, for example, requires "tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law" when serving a subpoena.
Often this payment is handled by a process server. But, sometimes, they don't handle the payment. What happens then?
Many (2) years ago, we (Andrew) wrote a (comparatively) riveting post about the Court denying a stipulation to extend redaction deadlines (insert witty parenthetical). In that post we speculated that the denial may have been due to either the number of documents affected (10) or the long length of the extension (6 weeks). No firm conclusion could be reached without greater powers of divination.
Yesterday we had another denial of a stip to extend redaction times in Qualcomm Inc. v. ARM Holdings PLC, C.A. No. 24-490-MN. D.I. 494 (D. Del. Nov. 17, 2025), that I think was a bit less mysterious.
The stipulation related to redacted SJ filings—openings, oppositions, and replies with all the accompanying papers.
The parties had already extended the deadlines for everything by several weeks when they filed a new stipulation seeking to move back the redaction deadlines for just the exhibits by a few more weeks.
I am no augur (that's Andrew's beat), and my powers to pierce the veil of the Court's reasoning are only of for mundane sort. But for my money, the key reason this stip was denied can be found in the following passage—I dare you to read it without your eyes glazing over:
the deadline for the parties to file redacted versions of their respective declarations and exhibits associated with opening (D.I. 410-413, 416-418, 422-424, 427-429, 432, 435-436, 439-440, 444-445), opposition (D.I. 448-450, 452, 454-455, 457, 459, 465-470), and reply (D.I. 479-480, 483, 485, 487, 491-492) summary judgment and Daubert papers is here by extended to December 1, 2025.
I tried to count how many docket items this is like 3 times before giving up. I can tell you it's on the order of 50, shoot me an email if you've got what you think is the real number (I promise I won't even try to check your math!).
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
