A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware

This is a
This is a "weight-shift controlled personal hydrofoil watercraft" U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044

Here at IP/DE, we try to have substantive, funny posts where we can all learn something about litigation in DE while being mildly amused.

Sometimes, though, all we get to be is mildly amused. This will be one of those posts.

Just look at this oral order:

ORAL ORDER: The deadline for Waydoos brief in opposition to the Motion for Permanent Injunction is extended to five minutes after I resolve the pending motion to withdraw (assuming I permit withdrawal) or until a date to be set (assuming I deny permission to withdraw). I note that the record to date appears to support the conclusion that Waydoo is a recalcitrant litigant in default of all its obligations related to this case. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/26/2024. (nms) (Entered: 01/26/2024)

MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc., C.A. No. 21-091-RGA, D.I. 276 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2024)

How did they get to this point? According to the docket, the parties took this case to trial, the plaintiff won a judgment of $1.3m and an ongoing royalty at $500 per "hydrofoil watercraft" sold (which, according to plaintiffs, amounts to around half of the profit per unit).

After the Court resolved post-trial motions (awarding some supplemental damages for the period leading up to trial, but no enhanced damages), defendant's counsel filed an unopposed motion to withdraw.

Almost immediately after defendants' counsel moved to withdraw, plaintiff moved for a permanent injunction. Defendant's counsel responded with a letter asking to extend the deadline to oppose the motion for permanent injunction until a few weeks after the hearing on their motion to withdraw.

The Court agreed, and issued the order above.

Why "5 minutes"?

By why "5 minutes after" defendants' counsel withdraws? That timing seemingly enables counsel to avoid ethical issues with not drafting the motion, while also leaving no time for defendant to retain new counsel after they withdraw.

Presumably, if the defendant is smart, it should already be pursuing replacement counsel. Otherwise it will have no practical ability to oppose entry of a permanent injunction.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.


Similar Posts