A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for date: November 2025

Another Day, Another Overbroad Interrogatory

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 7, 2025
Interrogatories Discovery Responses

That's a miss.
Chad Stembridge, Unsplash

Yesterday, visiting Judge Murphy issued an order resolving discovery disputes in A.L.M. Holding Company v. Zydex Industries Private Limited, C.A. No. 25-255-JFM (D. Del.).

The patentee had served a very broad interrogatory:

For each Accused Product, describe all research, development, testing, and manufacturing performed from January 1, 2013 to the present, including by identifying any dates, locations, persons involved along with their roles, the results of any testing, and any Documents (by Bates number) You contend provide evidence of any of the foregoing.

D.I. 117, Ex. F at 20. The accused infringer's response was just objections and a lengthy list of documents under FRCP 33(d). Id. at 21-28.

I frequently see people draft …

View

X-Ray Diffraction Is A Real Pain

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Nov. 6, 2025
Pennypack

As a young lad, analytical chemistry was my jam. I liked big cool machines with lasers and flames. I liked dissolving things in acid. I liked anything that gave off a swirly gas when heated.

Hans Reniers, Unsplash

For that reason, I have a special empathy for the plaintiffs in Harmony Biosciences, LLC v. Lupin Ltd., C.A. No. 23-1286-JLH-SRF (D. Del. Oct. 27, 2025), and their poor, overworked experts.

The patent there was for a specific crystalline form of a drug. Typically, you would figure out this form via X-ray diffraction (XRD), which involves shooting X-rays at a crystal (typically powdered) from different angles. Via science too involved to get into here, you get a series …

View

No Expert, No Infringement? Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Sanctioned Patent Plaintiff

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 5, 2025
Protective Order Protective Order Violation

Sir, is this
Sir, is this "complex technology" requiring an expert? Nah British Library, Unsplash

As we laid out in Friday's post, there was a hearing today in Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Systems, LLC, C.A. No. 18-1683-MN (D. Del.) regarding another potential protective order violation. The defendant in Rein alleged that the inventor (who has seen AEO information) has continued to prosecute another patent application in the same field, despite the prosecution bar in the Court's protective order.

Update on Today's Hearing

The Court opened the hearing today by announcing that it intended to grant the defendant's SJ motion of non-infringement. Shortly thereafter, counsel for the patentee informed the Court that the patentee is now willing to …

View

Sprawling, Slothful Beasts

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Nov. 4, 2025
Daubert

Summary Judgment and Daubert briefs are often sprawling, slothful beasts. They shift from issue to issue lodging complaints both specific and general over the course of many pages and exhibits.

Rude...
Rude... NOAA, Unsplash

Accordingly, it can be hard parse which arguments are actually being pressed and require a response.

Today's case is a sobering reminder of the consequences of missing one.

The plaintiff's opening Daubert brief in Magnolia Med. Techs., Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., C.A. No. 24-1124-CFC, consisted of 18 pages complaining about how the defendant's invalidity report was "devoid of any analysis or detail and fails at baseline to even map the prior art to the claim elements or explain what combination or modification of the prior art …

View

Update Re: Court's Disqualification of Testifying Expert and Other Sanctions for Protective Order Violation—New Hearing This Week

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 3, 2025
Protective Order Protective Order Violation

[Update: The hearing below has moved to 2:00pm today in Courtroom 4B (not 4A)]

Fireworks, n.,
Fireworks, n., "a display of temper or intense conflict" (per Merriam-Webster.com) Moritz Mentges, Unsplash

Over the summer, we posted twice about an interesting hearing in Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Systems, LLC, C.A. No. 18-1683-MN (D. Del.).

In the first post, we discussed how the Court sanctioned a party for misusing information that was designated under a protective order. In the second, we talked about how the defendant cleverly used PDF metadata to help show that the protective order violation took place.

Since then, the case has continued moving forward towards trial. It is set for a pretrial conference on …

View

Does O2 Micro Raise the Bar for Waiver of Claim Construction Issues?

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 2, 2025
Claim Construction Waiver Forfeiture

Wave
Jeremy Bishop, Unsplash

Last week, Judge Bryson ruled on a motion in limine where an accused infringer sought to strike the patentee's alleged "new theory" of validity just before trial or, in the alternative, for a permission to raise a new claim construction regarding that theory.

The Court ultimately denied the motion in limine because the accused infringer was on notice of the theory, but granted its alternative motion for permission to raise a new claim construction position regarding the theory, citing O2 Micro.

The Accused Infringer Was On Notice of the Issue

The Court easily denied the motion to strike, finding seven different ways that the accused infringer either was or should have been aware of the …

View

Archive