Last week I posted about an order in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd., C.A. No. 20-1707-CFC-CJB (D. Del.) where, after the Court had specifically warned the parties to make their experts available for Markman, a party then attempted to reschedule the Markman hearing because its expert was unavailable. It did not go well for them.
Shortly after the Court denied the plaintiff's request to move the hearing, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to present its expert testimony remotely, so that the expert could attend his trial and also provide testimony at the Markman hearing set for the same day.
The plaintiff pointed out that only the expert, not the plaintiff or counsel, is involved in the trial, so plaintiff has no ability to ask the other Court to move its trial.
The Court was unpersuaded:
ORAL ORDER: Philips' Motion for Leave to Present Remote Expert Testimony During the Claim Construction Hearing (No. 20-1707, D.I. 152; No 20-1710, D.I. 164) is DENIED as Philips has not shown (or even attempted to show) good cause for the Court to allow Mr. Lanning to testify remotely. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 2/9/2026.
Id., February 9, 2026 Oral Order. Well, I guess they'll have extra time to cross the other side's expert!
This is a good reminder that permission to offer remote testimony (or remote argument) is not at all a sure thing, even when unopposed. Out-of-town counsel sometimes assume this should be easy, like agreeing to a remote deposition. Nope. It does happen, but if you are aiming to have a witness provide remote testimony, it's a good idea to have a backup plan as well until the Court approves it.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
