Many years ago now (I'm so old), then-Judge Connolly (now Chief Judge Connolly) brought forth onto this district the gift of the word limit (at least in cases assigned to Judge Connolly). Nevermore would Delaware counsel spend hours futzing (technical term) with fonts and orphan control (it really sounds ominous to put those words together) in an effort to get our briefs down to the mandated 20 pages (this paragraph has waaay too many parentheticals).
For a time it seemed we would have a new golden age of beautiful briefs where every section began proudly atop its own page.
But alas, the conversion to a word limit spawned its own set of tactics to limit the number of words that must be counted. One such tactic—borrowed, in fact, from the days of the page limit—is the use of a table of abbreviations at the front of the document. Judge Connolly's opinion yesterday in Synopsys, Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1512-CFC (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2023) (Mem. Op.), neatly illustrates the pitfalls of this method.
The infringement defendant, Synopsis (plaintiff in the DJ action), moved for SJ of no indirect infringement. As a result of filing three other SJ motions and two Dauberts, Synopsis was running up against the combined word limit. Accordingly, each of the SJ briefs had a table of abbreviations right after the table authorities, seting forth the definitions of, among other things the "asserted claims." The body of the brief, however, did not specifically mention this table and just referred to the Asserted Claims generally throughout.
Chief Judge Connolly found this practice unclear, particularly because ...
