A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: FRE

Updates: New Federal Rules in Effect, JUDGES Act in Trouble, Chancellor McCormick Active on LinkedIn (with Briefing Tips!), and More

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 13, 2024
FRE 107 DED

I have no image for this. Here are some turtles that live just across the PA/DE border, in Chadds Ford, PA (presumably for the public schools).
I have no image for this. Here are some turtles that live just across the PA/DE border, in Chadds Ford, PA (presumably for the public schools). Andrew E. Russell, displayed with permission

There were a few interesting notes this week that didn't quite warrant their own posts, so here is a combined update. We should really be on X / Twitter / Bluesky / Trends or something—I'm not sure any of these updates really warrant more than 140 characters. But here you go:

  • As the Court pointed out last week, the new 2024 Federal Rules went into effect on December 1. It looks like the changes to the FRCP are not significant, but there are some interesting changes to the Rules of Evidence, including a brand new Rule 107. We've already discussed that rule, but in short, it renames "demonstratives" to "illustrative aids" and says that "[w]hen practicable, an illustrative aid used at trial must be entered into the record." The new rules have other changes as well, including nice clarifications to FRE 1006.
  • The Associate Press reported yesterday that the JUDGES Act, which would add two new D. Del. judges, is in peril and facing a veto threat. Please keep it in your thoughts...
  • Chancellor McCormick, chief judicial officer of the Delaware Court of Chancery, is active on LinkedIn. She recently shared helpful briefing tips, including about overuse of acronyms and that you should use non-breaking spaces.
  • Delaware recently announced new CLE rules, complete with a handy explanatory document. Beware—it looks like, under the new rules, Delaware attorneys now will be fined immediately if your CLE credits aren't completed by December 31 of your compliance year and reported by January 10 of the following year. No more makeup plans! There is a transition period for this year where the dates are a bit different.
  • The Delaware FBA announced last week that Delaware Bench & Bar conference will be September 25-26, 2025. Mark your calendars, and remember that the Court sometimes issues an order bumping any filing or service deadlines that are set for those days.
  • Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas has confirmed that he is moving from Waco to Austin, pending 5th Circuit sign-off. Law360 also reports that he named his dog Mandamus, which is awesome.
  • The District of Delaware's website, like many other courts across the country, added a warning recently about fake notices of electronic filing ("NEFs") that have malicious links. Sadly I can't seem to find any more detail on this, such as what to look for. Be careful out there!
View

Demonstrative Found. Or Is It an "Illustrative Aid"? A New Federal Rule of Evidence Is Coming in December

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 12, 2024
FRE 107 FRE

Illustrative Aid
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Last week, Nate wrote a post titled "Demonstrative Lost" about an instance where the Court rejected the parties' attempt to lodge demonstrative exhibits used at trial in the record.

In response, we heard from a reader about an upcoming and brand-new rule of evidence, FRE 107, that may address exactly this point, plus some other issues regarding demonstratives at trial.

Here is the text of the new rule, which is projected to take effect on December 1, 2024:

Rule 107. Illustrative Aids
(a) Permitted Uses. The court may allow a party to present an illustrative aid to help the trier of fact understand the evidence or argument if the aid’s utility in …
View

Disappointing Rule 36 Affirmance of Exclusion of Japanese Patent Office Publication - A Missed Opportunity for a Federal Circuit Opinion

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 13, 2021
§ 102 FRE

JP 1992-136787

Last year, we posted about an interesting result in a Delaware patent trial, where Judge Connolly excluded a Japanese Patent Office Utility Model Publication after the defendant failed to offer sufficient evidence of public accessibility (and actually offered some evidence of inaccessibility).

As we explained at the time, the defendant had tried to avoid IPR estoppel by arguing that it could not have found the reference in a reasonable search, but then argued that the reference was sufficiently publicly accessible to be a prior art reference. The Court rejected that argument, holding that the JPO publication was not publicly accessible and couldn't be used as prior art.

We noted this was a great opportunity for the the Federal Circuit to …

View

No, You Cannot Call the Plaintiff a "Patent Troll" at Trial (and Other Recent In Limine Results)

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 21, 2020
Trial Trial Calendar

Bridge
Jamie Street, Unsplash

Motions in limine can be kind of exciting. The motions and the rulings are typically short, and they are ordinarily filed with the pretrial order just before trial. Unlike most motions, the Court usually rules on them quickly (between the PTO and the trial), sometimes live at the pretrial conference, and the impact is felt almost immediately.

Plus, orders that result from MILs can sometimes have a huge effect on the practical course of the trial by precluding important arguments and evidence, or even by interfering with your trial themes—frequently at the last minute. So it's worth keeping in mind the kinds of things that may come up at the MIL stage.

Last week, Judge Andrews …

View

Judge Andrews Confirms Holding that Barred Full Prosecution History from Jury

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 16, 2020
FRE 403 FRE

Judge Andrews yesterday issued his opinion denying all post-trial motions in TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1835-RGA (D. Del.). The jury had returned a verdict of infringement and no invalidity after a trial in January 2020.

One part of the opinion stands out—Judge Andrews discusses his decision to preclude the defendant from discussing the full prosecution history of the patent before the jury as prejudicial under FRE 403:

I ruled that 2Wire could elicit testimony about what prior art was in front of the patent examiner, but that testimony about a “lengthy history of cancelling claims, adding claims, rejecting claims, [and] rejecting new claims” was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because …
View

Appeal to Watch: Exclusion of Japanese Patent Office Publication as Not Publicly Accessible

Andrew E. Russell, July 17, 2020
§ 102 FRE

The reference at issue, JP 1992-136787

Japanese patent publications are typically considered to be fairly safe prior art references, as long as you prove up authenticity and offer sufficient evidence of publication.

But it turns out that that second part—showing publication—is kind of important.

In F'real Foods LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., C.A. No. 16-41-CFC, Judge Connolly excluded a Japanese Patent Office Utility Model Publication on a motion in limine because the defendants failed to show that it was publicly accessible under § 102, based largely on defendants' own position in opposing IPR estoppel.

Couldn't Have Found Reference = No IPR Estoppel

The F'real defendants had previously filed an unsuccessful IPR, and plaintiff moved to exclude the reference based on IPR estoppel. …

View

Archive