I spent way too long just now trying to find the origin of the phrase "piercing the veil." It's so ubiquitous in the legal parlance that I just always assumed it was from Paradise Lost or something.
Apparently, there's no clear early usage -- the nearest available is a reference in Plutarch to "lifting the veil." This phrasing honestly makes a lot more sense from a writing standpoint, because that it is what people do with veils -- its honestly pretty unhinged behavior to pierce one.
Lift, don't pierce. That'll just ruin yer veil.Wesley Sanchez, Unsplash
Instead, it seems to have arisen in the exact same corporate law context that I use it in. Apparently, most normals don't use …
It's a good thing Unsplash has a seemingly unending supply of penny pictures for these Pennypack posts.Adam Nir, Unsplash
Sometimes it seems like every IP case, at some point, involves a dispute about a late disclosure and whether the Pennypackfactors excuse the late disclosure.
As I've complained before, the Pennypack factors originate in an old Third Circuit case and don't fit modern litigation practices very well.
In fact, at times they can feel backwards: they require that the "importance" of the evidence weighs in favor of permitting late disclosure. But if the evidence is important, why should a litigant be allowed to withhold …
If you have a few minutes to kill, go to your AI chatbot of choice and ask it to draw you a picture. Whatever you want. A raccoon perhaps.
Then slowly have it change that picture, and see how long it takes it to simply refuse. "Take away its fur," you'll say. "Make it slightly longer." "Give it 9 fingers on the front claws and 3 on the back." "Now he's wearing a tracksuit." "Now he's embarrassed about his baldness, give him hair plugs."
I feel that I have sinnedAI-Generated, displayed with permission
One of the stumbling blocks I have noticed is asking for a lawyer without glasses. No matter how clear you are, they always seem to sneak back in.
I can relate. I remember the first time I went to the DMV in Delaware. The guy behind the counter was, maaaaayyyybe 25. I had so far managed to avoid the corrective lenses note on my license and was eager to maintain this sign of my vigorous youth (I think I was 31).
I put my face in the little goggle machine. First row - easy. Second row - not so much. Row 3 - pretty bad. The guy at the counter kept saying "really? Try again." This went on for like 10 minutes. I know that reading it now, it sounds like he was trying to cut me a break. But if you were there, looking into his stupid perfect eyes, you would know that he was just genuinely baffled that I could not read that line. I think it shook him.
This is all a long-winded introduction to Judge Andrews' opinion in New Directions Tech. Consulting, LLC v. AbbottLabs. Inc., C.A. No. 25-506-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2026). The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Tennyson to resolve an early 101 motion. Judge Tennyson denied the motion in a manner reminiscent of Judge Noreika's practice, finding that—with 160 claims asserted—the parties had not given sufficient attention to the representative claim analysis to resolve the entire case, and that it was not an efficient use of the Court's time to resolve just the few claims actually discussed.
The defendant filed objections to the R&R which Judge Andrews denied, based in large part on several briefing irregularities:
The Magistrate Judge points out that Defendants supplemented their brief with a seven-page chart. The Magistrate Judge states, correctly, that Defendants "circumvent[]" the briefing page limits of the Local Rules. More significantly, the Magistrate Judge describes the briefing as "conclusory and largely unhelpful." I agree. It is Defendants' burden to show representativeness. Defendants failed
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Indeed, the Court seems to have been especially bothered bu the fact that this chart was in 8-point font, which it described as a violation of the local rules:
There are also Local Rules about font size. D.Del. LR 5.1. l(a) (12 point font for "[a]ll printed matter"). I do not think the exception for "[ e]xhibits submitted for filing," D.Del. LR 5.1.1.(b)(l), which appears to deal with pre-existing evidence, applies. Were the Magistrate Judge trying to load up on Defendants, she might have mentioned that the text of the seven additional pages is in what appears to be 8 point font.
Judge Andrews drove the point home by adding in a bit of 8-pt font for flare:
J. AndrewsJ. Andrews
Let this serve as a reminder that, unless that danged kid at the DMV is your judge, please observe the font requirements.
Whoever drafted the responding party's timeline in this case should write a book about how to draft persuasive timelines.Rita Morais, Unsplash
In D. Del. the vast majority of discovery motions are brought as discovery disputes. Basically, the parties meet-and-confer, and if they are unable to resolve the dispute, they file a joint letter or jointly call chambers (depending on the judge) to schedule a conference. In the lead up to the conference, they then file short (2- to 4-page) letters about the dispute, and the Court resolves it—possibly before the teleconference.
Do We Even Have a Dispute?
Sometimes, though, the process breaks down when the parties don't agree that they actually have a dispute. That's what …
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.
