This isn't a surprising result, but it's still a good data point on attempting to force a post-COVID remote deposition.
In Etienne Maugain v. FCA US LLC, C.A. No. 22-116-JLH-SRF (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2025), the plaintiffs asked the defendant to take their deposition remotely, rather than in person, or to take the deposition where they reside (offering to reimburse travel costs). They cited cited medical conditions, dependent care obligations and work schedules. The defendant refused, and the parties ultimately brought cross motions to compel an in-person deposition in Delaware, and for a protective order to prevent such a deposition.
In their motion, the plaintiffs apparently dropped their objections on medical and dependent-care …
Judge Williams issued an interesting opinion yesterday on a motion to strike.
This is becoming my standard pitcture when I don't have anything more clever. Let me know if you would like me to replace it with a series of cartoons of Andrew and I shruggingBilly, Unsplash
The issue in Cisco Systems, Inc. et al v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd., C.A. No. 21-1365-GBW (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2025) was the form of the briefing. The case had previously been assigned to Judge Stark, before passing to the vacant judgeship, then Judge Burke. The parties' scheduling order thus followed judge Burke's form order which contained a specific letter briefing procedure for motions to strike with 3-page opening, a 5 page answering and 2-page reply briefs. When the case was reassigned to Judge Williams, the parties kept the old scheduling order.
The parties ultimately raised the motion to strike through Judge Williams' dispute procedures. He issued an oral order that allowed for only 3-page opening and answering briefs without reference to the procedures in the scheduling order:
Having reviewed the parties' joint letter requesting a discovery teleconference (D.I. 146), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 2024, any party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three (3) pages, outlining the issues in dispute, its position on those issues, and supporting authority for its position(s). By no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 12, 2024, any party opposing the request for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three (3) pages, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition and supporting authority.
The movant (Plaintiff) filed a 3 page letter (the correct procedure under either the scheduling order the later oral order). The defendant, however, filed a 5-page answering brief -- allowed under the scheduling order but exceeding the limit set in the oral order.
Judge Williams thus declined to consider any of the argument after page 3 of the brief:
While the Operative Scheduling Order sets default page limits for motions to strike, the parties were both instructed to submit letter briefs not exceeding three pages. Cisco complied with that instruction. Ramot did not. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion and give no weight to the text beyond page three of Ramot's brief.
In the years since, we have seen occasional orders from the Court requiring parties to submit to private mediation. Typically, this has occurred in cases where the parties have indicated that they are already near settlement, and often on the eve of trial.
The District of Delaware's 2025 Bench and Bar is set for September 25-26, 2025. Yesterday, as we predicted, the Court issued an order moving all filing and service deadlines for those days to the following Monday, and directing the Court not to set deadlines on those days:
WHEREAS, the Court having announced that it will host its biennial District of Delaware Bench and Bar Conference on September 25 and 26, 2025, and the Court wishing to promote the participation of as many members of the Bar as possible;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all members of the court - District, Magistrate, and Bankruptcy Judges - will, to the greatest extent possible, cancel and refrain …
Defendants are always on the lookout for ways resolve patent cases (and other cases) early. One potential avenue is an FRCP 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings—but it only works in uncommon circumstance that the pleadings themselves show a lack of infringement or validity.
It's an uncommon circumstance—but not unheard of. Last week, the Court granted an FRCP 12(c) motion of no contributory infringement in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma. Inc. v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 23-685-CFC (D. Del.), after a plaintiff's own complaint showed a lack of infringement.
Boehringer is an ANDA action. The patent claims a drug used to treat a disease in patients who—critically—are ineligible to receive a second drug. The label …
It's easy to forget. But really, really really, you should move to seal the courtroom when either side is discussing your client's confidential information.
As we've discussed before, the standard for sealing information is harsh. Under the Third Circuit's Avandia opinion, in order to show good cause for a protective order to seal, a party must show "with specificity" that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 671 (3d Cir. 2019). That can be toughtodo.
But you know what is even tougher? Redacting information discussed in open court. Then …
It's become fairly common to see opinions in Delaware noting that an argument has been waived when presented only in passing. The classic example is something discussed only in a footnote.
This of course leads to the question of which other bits of a brief are too scanty to hide an argument. Might there be other spots we should know to avoid?
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Judge Williams' opinion last week in Game Play Network, Inc. v. Lien Games Racing LLC, C.A. No. 23-323-GBW-CJB, D.I. 34 (D. Del. Jan 3, 2025) gave us just such an example of a place an argument can not be placed.
As a bit of background, local rule 7.1.3 lists a series of sections required for briefs including "nature and stage of the proceedings," "conclusion," and—important here—"argument." The plaintiff there had lost a 101 motion and moved for reconsideration, alleging among other things, that the Court had neglected to address several claim construction issues. In particular, the motion for reconsideration argued that the "statement of facts" portion of their original opposition brief had discussed several relevant terms and the need for construction.
Judge Williams found that the passing reference to claim construction in the argument section was ...
Back in 2021 the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am. that raised the standard for granting a motion to dismiss in a patent action. C.A. No. 2020-2218, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20624 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2021). The Federal Circuit held that "[a] plaintiff is not required to plead infringement on an element-by-element basis"—which was news to the patent practitioners who had filed (and won) motions on that basis.
We haven't written much about that decision in the time since, but it's still out there, and it's something to keep in mind as you weigh your options in response to a patent infringement complaint.
I'm a baker. I was born of flour and heat and fermented in this big jar we call life. My original starter, Yeasty Boy, has sired many children that live lives of plenty. His grandchild, breAD-Rock, sits upon my counter as I type, growing fat on apple peels.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
One of the first lessons of baking is that some ingredients can be modified or omitted without any real worry. You trade rosemary for thyme in your focaccia and everything's honky dory. On the other hand, if you switch the strong bread flour to whole wheat, you have crossed a moral line from which there may be no return. Some ingredients are simply more important, and some substitutions …
We're back! Just in time to be snowed in—the Court is closed today due to inclement weather.
While we were out last week, Chief Judge Connolly issued an interesting opinion on post-trial motions in Natera, Inc. v. CareDX, Inc., C.A. No. 20-38-CJB (D. Del.).
That case went to trial in January 2024, with plaintiff Natera winning a $96 million verdict on the first of two patents, but receiving a verdict of no infringement of the second patent. The Court's opinion addresses their motion for JMOL of infringement on the second patent.
Did a Poorly Phrased Question Doom JMOL of Infringement?
The arguments turned on a single claim limitation. The Court found …
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.
