Writing a blog can be a bit like real journalism. More often it's a tedious exercise in easy jokes that amuse only the author, but, sometimes, there's a bit of sneaky sleuthing involved.
You tell me why he has human hands.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
For those who don't click links, the pro hac at issue was for an attorney involved in several of the infamous Mavexar cases. Judge Connolly issued sua sponte orders setting a hearing on the pto hac motion and requiring the attorney in question to submit "a sworn declaration in which he (1) …
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 …
As we bid good riddance to another year, things tend to slow down in DE, with motions and briefs being stipped out to accommodate the many upcoming holidays. Rather than spend this time with our own families, we here at IP/DE like to spend the month going over various stats for the past year.
Today we have a little rundown of 101 motions in the district.
For instance, you might be interested to know that the Court has decided 17 motions to dismiss based on 101 this year, not counting identical motions filed in related cases. (eds. note -- it occurred to me after compiling this data that it would have made sense to include …
Legal practice in the District of Delaware tends to involve filing a lot of stipulations, particularly stipulations to adjust deadlines. Most often (but not always), these are "so ordered" shortly after they are filed.
Every once in a while, though, the Court will "so order" a stipulation but also modify the PDF to add a note or adjust something.
For practitioners, honestly, these modifications can be very hard to catch. If the Court types something into the "so ordered" PDF, in the same font as the original, it can be almost invisible unless you have a lawyer or paralegal do a careful line-by-line comparison of the original and the new PDF.
For years now I've been working on a double-dutch rhyme for the Pennypack factors. A Miss Merry-Mack for elderly nerds, if you will. It shall be my crowning achievement as a Delaware lawyer, and the work that I shall be remembered for.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
But until that Glorious work is unveiled at the 2038 Bench and Bar conference, I can present you with just another Pennypack opinion for your portfolio. This one follows the recent trend of a slightly harsher application of the factors.
The Plaintiff in Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Axion BioSystems, Inc., C.A. No. 23-198-CJB, D.I. 456 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2025) had responded to an interrogatory asking for which elements were not …
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 …
Happy Thanksgiving, all! In observation of the holiday—and because the Court doesn't usually issue a lot of decisions this week—we'll be taking some time off from the blog. Keep in mind, if you have cases here in the District of Delaware, that the Court is closed on both Thursday and Friday. See you next week!
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, …
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.
