In the post, we note that certain kinds of stipulations are kinda iffy, in that "the parties can file a stipulation [about the issue] but the Court may deny or modify it, or the stipulation may have unexpected consequences." One of those categories is requests to move the trial date.
We got a good example of that this week in Rotolight Limited v. Videndum PLC, C.A. No. 22-0098-JLH, D.I. 119 (D. Del. July 8, 2024). The parties tried to stipulate to move the trial date back by …
The (long breath) Delaware Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (ESI), is well, a default. It's designed to be flexible enough to accomodate the big case and the small.
Not sure what's going on with Big T's legs in this oneAI-Generated, displayed with permission
This leads to seeming anomalies like section 5(b), which sets forth an in-depth procedure for electing search terms, but does not actually require the parties to use them:
If the producing party elects to use search terms to locate potentially responsive ESI, it shall disclose the search terms to the requesting party. Absent a showing of good cause, a requesting party may request no more than 10 additional terms to be used in connection with the electronic search. Focused terms, rather than over-broad terms (e.g ., product and company names), shall be employed . The producing party shall search (i) the non-custodial data sources identified in accordance with paragraph 3(b); and (ii) emails and other ESI maintained by the custodians identified in accordance with paragraph 3(a).
So, do the parties ever have to use search terms? Judge Williams gave us one of the first clear answers to that question I've seen in Biogen Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc., C.A. No. 22-2290-GBW, D.I. 364 (D. Del. June 17, 2024):
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Biogen's request to compel Defendants to conduct additional search terms is GRANTED-IN- PART. Defendants have not run any keyword searches on ESI yet, so contend that the Delaware Default Standard does not apply. While there is no per se obligation to use ESI search terms, a party has a separate obligation to comply with discovery obligations. Defendants' current manual searches for emails have turned up only a few hundred emails. This production is facially unreasonable. it strikes the Court as implausible that two international companies, in the course of manufacturing, commercializing, and seeking approval of a complex biosimilar drug created only a few hundred responsive emails. While not every case requires search terms, in the circumstances of this case, Defendants have not provided a workable alternative. Defendants' suggestion that Biogen must provide all of the terms, and guess-and-check their way into a reasonably proportionate search, is not how the Delaware Default Standard was meant to operate. Thus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall propose search terms to respond to Biogen's requests for productions. Biogen will then have the opportunity to, in accordance with the Delaware Default Standard, propose ten search terms of their own across ten total custodians.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
There you go, there is no "per se obligation" to use search terms, you have to offer a workable alternative.
This image makes sense if you get to the end of this post, I swear.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Last week, during our blog break, visiting Judge John Frank Murphy of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a fascinating disqualification decision in a patent action, Veeva Systems Inc. v. Tact.ai Technologies, Inc., Aktana, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1032 (D. Del. July 3, 2024).
In short, an attorney represented the current defendant, Veeva, against a trade secret and patent infringement suit back in 2013. That suit related to software called "Appoved Email." The attorney supervised the defense team and ultimately helped draft a settlement agreement that included a cross-license of some Veeva patent applications. Id. at 2-5.
If you've spent way too much time on the internet lately, you'll likely have seen way too many memes about how kids today don't understand the order of operations. The typical format is some bookface (tm) post along the lines of:
999,999 out of 1,000,000 people get this wrong:
3 + 4(3+2) - 2 X 3 = ?
17
The darkness at the end of all time
97
(audible belch)
And then there's someone confidently giving the wrong answer.
Of course, the correct answer can only be arrived at by following the prescribed order of operations. This same concept comes up quite often in civil procedure, but the application is often less straightforward than good old …
We heard from the Court last week that it has selected a new magistrate judge for the District of Delaware: Eleanor G. Tennyson.
The announcement describes her background:
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware is pleased to announce its selection of Eleanor G. Tennyson as a United States Magistrate Judge. Ms. Tennyson fills the position vacated by Judge Jennifer Hall upon Judge Hall’s elevation to the District Court.
Ms. Tennyson is an honors graduate of Grinnell College and received her master’s degree in chemistry from the Clemson University Graduate School of Chemistry. Ms. Tennyson earned her law degree from the University of Iowa College of Law where she was managing editor of the Iowa Law Review. …
As is tradition, IP/DE will be going quiet for a couple of weeks over the Fourth of July holiday, as both Nate and I are taking trips. Have a good 4th, and see you next month!
"Whatcha doin'?" "I'm writing out my 543rd trade secret. One hundred more to go."AI-Generated, displayed with permission
In my experience it's fairly uncommon to see a party get multiple days of deposition time with a fact witness deponent, outside of a few recurring circumstances (e.g. translated depositions). That's why I thought it was worth pointing out the ruling unsealed today in Gemedy, Inc. v. The Carlyle Group, Inc., C.A. No. 23-157-CFC-SRF (D. Del. June 7, 2024).
In Gemedy, plaintiff alleged misappropriation of 643 trade secrets, all authored (or co-authored, for 11 of them) by one person over an eight-year period. The defendant sought to depose that one person for four days, given their scope of …
Yesterday, in Datacore Software Corp. v. Scale Computing, Inc., C.A. No. 22-535-GBW (D. Del. June 21, 2024), the Court issued fascinating opinion rejecting an indefiniteness argument for apparatus and method claims that included an "intent" requirement.
The claims at issue relate to allocating drive space on computer disks. The patentee explained in the specification that the system involves defining multiple virtual disks that can, collectively, be larger than the actual physical space available (e.g., in a sense, they overlap):
One advantage of the present invention is that the physical storage devices that are placed into a storage pool do not need to add up to the size of …
At this point, I cannot find that Plaintiff has been operating in good faith. Thus, I will set a show cause hearing at which I will consider issuing a sanction of $10,000 to $100,000. Before I set a date for that hearing, I need two things: (1) Plaintiff has ten days to give the redactions on Exhs. B, F, G, H, and I one more try; and (2) I need Plaintiff to identify the lawyer who is responsible for the significant waste of my time dealing with this issue.
Id.
Since then the plaintiff filed a letter explaining its reasoning and requesting that the Court "reconsider whether it will hold a hearing to show cause or require Greenthread to publicly name an attorney involved in this issue." Id., D.I. 90 at 3.
In a modern patent case -- with dozens of claims and zillions of similar accused products -- there are innumerable possible permutations of infringement and invalidity outcomes.
This can make it pretty difficult to craft a stipulation on undisputed issues.
The image generator I was using is now behind a paywall so I'm trying out new ones. Expect some more cursed illustrations like this for the next little whileAI-Generated, displayed with permission
This was the hard lesson in Janssen Pharms, Inc. v. Tolmar, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1784-WCB, D.I. 198 (D. Del. June 13, 2024). In that ANDA case, the defendant had stipulated that "if any of claims 1–7, claim 15, and claims 17–21 (as dependent from claims …
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.
