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.
We're back! It looks like a fair number of opinions and orders have accumulated during out hiatus, and we're looking forward to digging into them (seriously—the hardest part of writing the blog is finding things to write about).
Last week, Judge Williams issued a fairly lengthy opinion on a motion to compel production of documents from before the Default Standard's 6-year discovery provision.
For those who are not aware, the District of Delaware's Default Standard limits "follow-up" discovery in patent actions, with some exceptions, to a period of six years prior to the complaint (tracking the limitation on patent damages under § 286) absent a showing of good cause:
Absent a showing of good cause, follow-up discovery shall be limited to a term of 6 years before the filing of the complaint, except that discovery related to asserted prior art or the conception and reduction to practice of the inventions claimed in any patent-in-suit shall not be so limited.
This can be a real limitation on discovery for cases in which the Default Standard applies (which is not all cases). And while parties occasionally reach the Court with a dispute where one party is trying to make the required showing of good cause to get around it, it's not as common as you might think.
But it is an issue that applies to just about every patent case, so it is great to see a detailed opinion from the Court about it. In Roche Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Trvidia Health, Inc., C.A. No. 24-668-GBW (D. Del. July 9, 2025), Judge Williams addressed a motion to compel production of various discovery prior to the six-year cutoff under the default standard.
The Court addressed four categories of documents and interrogatory responses, and ordered production of most of them. The Court ordered production of:
Development documents
First sale / demonstrate / manufacture / launch documents
Documents regarding knowledge of the asserted patents, and the plaintiff's products and methods
The Court denied the motion to compel production as to:
Damages and reasonable royalty documents
The Court's reasoning for each category provided some useful insights.
"Back in my day, we locked our first year associates in a room stacked with banker's boxes for weeks on end! None of this 'search term' mumbo jumbo!"AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Judge Williams issued a lengthy decision today in GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 24-512-GBW (D. Del.), addressing a number of disputes relating to proposed protective and ESI orders in multiple related actions.
There is a lot of interesting material in the decision, but one ruling in particular caught my eye, because it's an issue that comes up a lot: whether a party has to use search terms to search ESI.
Most, but not all, of our judges have adopted the Court's Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI")—a document that, despite it's catchy name, is usually referred to as the "Default Standard."
The Default Standard places the option of using search terms in the producing party's hands:
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 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).
Thus, producing parties sometimes decide not to use search terms, and to instead review and produce their ESI the old-fashioned way (potentially including hours of brutal contract-attorney document-by-document review).
Occasionally the opposing party will ask the producing party to use search terms. In cases governed by the Default Standard, I would expect a producing party to feel little pressure in responding "no," since the Default Standard recognizes that using search terms is optional.
We've writtenbefore about how delay can kill your discovery motions. We got another straightforward example on Monday in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 20-133, D.I. 340 (D. Del. Mar 31, 2025).
There, the defendants sought depositions of two foreign inventors through the Hague convention. The defendants have known the relevance of the inventors' knowledge since at least July, 2022, but only moved for issuance of letters rogatory in December 2024.
The case was stayed for a portion of that time, but in total, the Court found that there was no good reason that it should have taken so long to seek this discovery:
When I started practicing here in the District of Delaware (the decade before last), the typical advice was that a patent case would proceed to scheduling and discovery even if the defendant files a motion to dismiss. Lately, though, several of the District of Delaware judges have been holding off on initiating the FRCP 16 scheduling process when the defendant files a motion to dismiss.
Often, as we've discussed, a smart plaintiff in that situation will file a letter asking the Court to direct the parties to conduct an FRCP 26(f) conference, so that discovery can move forward. Most often that seems to work. …
Discovery agreements are a powerful tool. If you promise to produce to do or not do something during discovery, the Court will typically enforce that:
Litigating parties, represented by able patent counsel, are expected to uphold the agreements they make during a case, and the Court should ordinarily (absent extreme circumstances not present there) enforce such agreements.
The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., C.A. No. 22-057-CJB, D.I. 177 (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2024).
What are the kind of "extreme circumstances" that warrant not enforcing a discovery agreement? We got a hint of that last week in In re: Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent Litigation, C.A. No. 20-2930-RGA, D.I. 1683 (Dec. 5, 2024). …
This train don't stop until the close of fact discovery (... unless the Court stops it)Jed Dela Cruz, Unsplash
The Court issued an oral order in airSlate, Inc. v. Inkit, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1307-RGA-SRF (D. Del.) yesterday, and it's a good reminder of a general rule that frequent D. Del. practitioners already know: once discovery starts, it generally proceeds even while a Rule 12 motion is pending.
The Court's order yesterday described how the defendant in airSlate had objected to producing its source code solely on the basis that a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending:
Defendant agreed to produce source code in its response to Request for Production …
"Yes, we need to know their financials for our permanent injunction. It totally won't help us in settlement negotiations or anything."AI-Generated, displayed with permission
This is another one where I saw a potentially useful order about an issue that comes up from time to time, and thought "I should write a blog post about that, so I can find it later." I hope this will be helpful for others as well.
Last week in Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1233-GBW (D. Del.), the Court addressed the question of whether a plaintiff in a "competitor-competitor" patent case could compel production of the defendant's corporate-level financials. It held that no, it could not, …
Over 10 years ago, the District of Delaware adopted its "Default Standard" for discovery, which sets forth several basic rules for discovery, particularly in patent actions.
One of the rules is the requirement to produce "core technical documents" early in the case:
Within 30 days after receipt of the [list of accused products and asserted patents], each defendant shall produce to the plaintiff the core technical documents related to the accused product(s), including but not limited to operation manuals, product literature, schematics, and specifications.
Pretty quickly after its adoption, the Court held that this includes non-public documents, after parties started trying to skirt the rule by dumping user manuals on the patentee.
If there is one thing that tends to kill discovery motions, it's delay. If you want to have the best chance of winning your motion to compel, supplement, strike, etc., you need to bring the motion early. Don't wait.
We got a good example of that last week in CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Security, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1477-JLH, D.I. 163 (D. Del. Apr. 9, 2024). There, a defendant sought to compel a deposition of an inventor before a Markman hearing, arguing that the testimony was important for claim construction. The Court denied the request, in part because they waited too long:
ORAL ORDER: The Court has reviewed the discovery …
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.
