A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Letter

What Do You Do If You Find Out Your Expert Has an Ethical Conflict, After You Already Relied on His Declaration?

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 12, 2026
Expert Discovery Letter

As my daughter is fond of saying after some minor catastrophe,
As my daughter is fond of saying after some minor catastrophe, "whoopsy doodles!" NOAA, Unsplash

Well, this is a new one. Apparently, in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Alvogen Pb Research & Development LLC, C.A. No. 18-1395-CFC-CJB (D. Del.), the defendant found out just a little bit too late that their expert had an ethical conflict because he had previously represented the plaintiff.

It's hard to tell exactly what the circumstances were here, because it looks like the relevant motion and all related briefing is fully sealed, with no redacted versions available.

But from what I can see, the plaintiff received a judgment in its favor on some of its claims back in 2022. (D.I. 308). …

View

Unsolicited 8-Page Letter to the Court Works, Results in Permission to File Early SJ

Andrew E. Russell, July 22, 2024
Congestion Early SJ

No Dogs Allowed
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

It's usually risky to send long, unsolicited letters to the Court seeking relief, particularly with extensive argument. Generally you are well served to keep letters short and limited or you may annoy the Court.

The Court frequently says that it prefers parties to make requests for relief by motion rather than letter. This is even included most (maybe all) of the judges' form scheduling orders:

Applications by Motion. Except as otherwise specified herein, any application to the Court shall be by written motion. Any non-dispositive motion should contain the statement required by Local Rule 7.1.1 [that the parties have verbally met-and-conferred with local counsel on the line].

But the Court doesn't always enforce this. It's not …

View

Court Denies Request to Reopen Discovery After Third-Party Letter Suggests Possible Standing Issue

Andrew E. Russell, April 18, 2021
Letter Trial

In In Re Chanbond, LLC Patent Litigation, Judge Andrews denied a request for post-pretrial-order discovery on Friday. The request came after Defendants received an e-mail from attorneys from third-party Deirdre Leane alleging that her consent was required for any settlement between the defendants and plaintiff ChanBond:

On September 2, 2020, Defendants received an email from Ms. Leane’s counsel, informing them of a dispute between Ms. Leane and ChanBond. . . . The email stated, “As we read Section 8.3 of the ISA, Ms. Leane’s written consent is required given that a license is a transfer of an interest in the patents-in-suit, which in turn are material assets of ChanBond.” . . . The email warned, “[P]lease take notice …
View

Archive