A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Local Rules

The current local rules have served us well since before the time of TikTok, COVID, and the cryptocurrency boom.
The current local rules have served us well since before the time of TikTok, COVID, and the cryptocurrency boom. Jeremy Malecki, Unsplash

This is exciting! Today, the District Court posted the prospective 2026 update to the local rules, for public comment!

(Seriously! It doesn't happen all that often.)

So, what's new? A redline is available at the link above. From a very quick review, here are a few notable additions and changes. The new rules:

  • Specifically ban "exactly 24 point" line spacing for briefs. Some attorneys had used this to try to fit more into the page limits. At least one judge had noticed this practice, and prohibited it. Now it will be clear that this is not allowed. …

Danger
Micaela Parente, Unsplash

In Pierce v. Delaware River and Bay Authority, C.A. No. 24-679-RGA (D. Del.), an employment case, the defendant filed a pretty typical 20-page motion for summary judgment that sought summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims.

In response, the plaintiff filed a motion for 10 additional pages for its answering summary judgment brief, in order to address all of his claims, including "retaliation under the First Amendment, and Defamation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law." Id., D.I. 54 at 2. The defendants opposed.

Or, at least, they did in theory. The Court granted the motion before the defendants filed their responsive brief, and the plaintiff received 50% more pages than …

I fancy myself a bit of an aficionado of the local rules (a petty fiefdom, I know, but I rule it fairly). Like any Delaware lawyer I can rattle off the big ones—7.1.1, 16.4., 26.2 and the like—and I can even pull some b-sides out in a pinch.

Ooooh, they've got 54.1! Costly though...
Ooooh, they've got 54.1! Costly though... Florecio Viadana, Unsplash

But I must say I had to have a real think when I read Judge Bataillon's recent order in Astellas Pharma Inc. v. Ascent Pharms., Inc., C.A. No. 23-486-JFB-EGT (D. Del. July 28, 2025) and saw a citation to D. Del. LR 5.4(b)(3).

Obviously you'll all have this one memorized, but just in case any lay readers are …

Pro Se Litigant
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

It's relatively uncommon to see IP cases involving pro se litigants, given that corporations cannot appear pro se—but it does happen, such as when an inventor ends up being a party in a patent case.

If you find yourself as an attorney in a case involving a pro se party, it's worth remembering that a number of the District of Delaware rules include specific provisions for cases involving pro se litigants. Here are some examples.

Rule 5.2: Service

The first one is easy. Local Rule 5.2 says that, in cases involving parties that are not participants in the Court's electronic filing system (including pro se parties), you must file a certificate of service. This is …

Danger Landmines
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Local Rule 37.1 seems to often be forgotten. It requires a party bringing a discovery motion (which would include a discovery dispute) to recite or attach the discovery request or responses they are moving about:

Any discovery motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 through 37 shall include, in the motion itself or in a memorandum, a verbatim recitation of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, or objection which is the subject of the motion or shall have attached a copy of the actual discovery document which is the subject of the motion.

D. Del. LR 37.1. Judge Burke's Guidelines for Discovery Disputes include a very similar requirement (and a requirement for the opposing …

This is definitely not a District of Delaware courtroom. But you get the idea...
This is definitely not a District of Delaware courtroom. But you get the idea... David Veksler, Unsplash

Under the D. Del. local rule 7.1.4, a written request for oral argument is due seven days after the reply brief on a motion.

According to the rule, the Court may or may not schedule oral argument on receiving a request—and may schedule argument even if it is not requested:

Oral argument on any motion may be scheduled upon the application of a party, or sua sponte by Court order.

That leads to a common question, "Should we request oral argument on our motion?"

The short answer is: yes, if you want oral argument. The Court is going to schedule …

Tennessee
Drew Beamer, Unsplash

Visiting Judge McCalla has taken about 13 patent cases so far here in Delaware, including some additional assignments late last month. A reader who has a case before him flagged an interesting point: Judge McCalla brings some of his home-state rules with him.

In his orders on hearings and scheduling conferences, for example, he directs the parties to either the Northern District of California local patent rules or the District of Tennessee local patent rules:

1. A video motion conference re: Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) will be held . . .
2. The parties should refer to the Northern District of California or the Western District of Tennessee Patent Rules.

See, e.g., New York University v. Resmed, Inc., C.A. No. 21-813-JPM (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2022).

Likewise, scheduling orders in his cases may look a bit alien to regular Delaware practitioners, as he uses the District of Tennessee form. That form results in a two-page scheduling order like the attached, which focuses primarily on a few of the initial dates and guidelines, rather than ...

You're drafting a brief in D. Del., and you're not sure what it's supposed to look like. You're in luck! The local rules tell you exactly what sections you need to include in an opening or answering brief (see LR 7.1.3(c)(1) for more detail):

  1. Two tables (a table of contents and a table of authorities).
  2. "A statement of the nature and stage of the proceedings."
  3. "A summary of argument, setting forth in separately numbered paragraphs the legal propositions upon which the party relies."
  4. "A concise statement of facts, with supporting references to the record, presenting the background of the questions at issue."
  5. "An argument" with "appropriate headings distinctly setting forth separate points."
  6. "A short …

Sit back, relax, and enjoy this long post about <a href='#' class='abbreviation' data-bs-toggle='tooltip' data-placement='top' title='United States District Court for the District of Delaware'>D. Del</a>. local rules...
Sit back, relax, and enjoy this long post about D. Del. local rules... XPS, Unsplash

The District of Delaware's local rules are available on the court's website, but they don't tell the whole story—there are a number of critical rules and practices set forth in other documents that are not as obvious on the site.

These can really trip you up if you're not familiar with D. Del. practice.

This post is geared towards mainly towards out-of-town or in-house counsel. It covers the basics and then lays out where to find some of those other important rules if you have a …

Piper Saratoga Plane
Alan Lebeda, CC BY 2.0

Last week, Judge Andrews granted a motion for reargument in a products liability diversity action, permitting further argument on summary judgment after the Court had previously ended the case by finding against plaintiff at summary judgment.

In its original opinion, nearly a year ago, the Court found that a federal statute that limits products liability for aircraft parts manufacturers blocked recovery here, and entered a judgment for defendant on all claims.

Plaintiff's motion for reargument asserted that, in addition to bringing actions against defendant as a "manufacturer," it had asserted claims based on the defendant's role as a "rebuilder and seller" of airline parts, and then detailed an argument based on the statutory language, …