A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Oral Argument

Should You Request Oral Argument on Your Motion in the District of Delaware?

Andrew E. Russell, June 22, 2022
KB Oral Argument

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 …

View

Judge Stark Denies PI Motion on the Papers

David M. Fry, Sept. 24, 2021
Preliminary Injunction Oral Argument

Oral argument is never guaranteed in D. Del. This means you need to be careful in paring back your briefs—anything that ends up on the cutting room floor might never see the light of day.

Case in point: On Friday, Judge Stark issued an order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction in a competitor case (seeking to require the defendant to withdraw several pending IPR petitions). Both sides requested oral argument, and the plaintiff requested an expedited hearing.

Instead of holding argument, Judge Stark summarily denied the motion on the papers. In a single paragraph, he held that the plaintiff "failed to persuade the Court" on any of the preliminary injunction factors, and noted that a full …

View

Judge Connolly Compliments Attorney's Behavior, Advises That "All Counsel Would Do Well to Follow His lead"

Andrew E. Russell, April 12, 2021
Litigation Oral Argument

High Five
High Five Jonas Vincent, Unsplash

Judge Connolly put this oral order on the docket on Thursday:

ORAL ORDER: The Court has read Plaintiffs' April 7 letter . . . . The Court understood Mr. Groombridge's response to be in substance what Plaintiffs outline in their letter. The Court asked an imprecise question. But the Court had in mind what Mr. Groombridge had in mind. Mr. Groombridge has appeared before the Court on numerous occasions and the Court appreciates and respects his practice of conceding points he should concede and getting to the heart of the disputed matters before the Court. All counsel would do well to follow his lead in that regard.

Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. …

View

Archive