A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Rule 26

Another Order to Produce Litigation Funding Discovery—This Time Against What Looks Like a Practicing Entity

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 5, 2022
Litigation Funding Discovery Dispute

Money
Pepi Stojanovski, Unsplash

Last week, Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge issued an opinion addressing a motion by accused infringers to compel the patentee to produce litigation funding discovery and opinion letters relating to the patents-in-suit.

While it involves litigation funding discovery, this case is a bit different from the recent Mavexar hearings. Here, the patentee is MHL Custom, Inc. who, it appears, is a practicing company and not an NPE. Beyond that, the case is still active (unlike some of the Mavexar cases) and the discovery is sought by the defendant, not the Court itself. In other words, this is a more typical ruling.

But the opinion is still notable. The Court granted the accused infringers' motion for three categories …

View

Damages Computations and Contentions Must be Specific, Even Before Expert Opinions

Emily DiBenedetto, Aug. 23, 2022
Damages Initial Disclosures

Damages
Mick Haupt, Unsplash

If the other side is giving you spotty details on damages during Rule 26 initial disclosures, we may have a case for you. Judge Williams hasn’t issued opinions from the bench yet, but this Special Master opinion from last year challenges the “we’ll wait for expert reports” excuse with respect to damages contentions.

In TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network Corp., C.A. 15-614-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 2021), defendants sought to compel plaintiff to supplement its initial disclosures and contentions on damages, and Judge Williams granted the motion.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Computation of Damages

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), requires “a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party . . . .” Plaintiff said …

View

System Prior Art Strikes Again

Andrew E. Russell, May 24, 2022
Expert Discovery Pennypack

Copyright Symbol
Andrew E. Russell

We've talked before about how asserting invalidity based on system prior art (as opposed to written publications, for example) can be tricky, because accused infringers can face all kinds of sometimes-unexpected difficulties with proving up the prior art.

Parties often get into sticky evidentiary questions about exactly what kinds of evidence are sufficient to show that the relevant prior art was on sale before the priority date, and how the prior art functioned—and whether that all of that evidence has authenticity or hearsay issues.

On Friday, Magistrate Judge Burke issued a long oral report and recommendation to grant summary judgment of no invalidity based on a system prior art reference. In the case, the defendants relied …

View

What Are the "Usual Discovery Dispute Procedures" in the District of Delaware?

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 25, 2021
KB Discovery Dispute

Le Duel a l'Épée et au Poignard (The Duel with the Sword and Dagger)
Le Duel a l'Épée et au Poignard (The Duel with the Sword and Dagger), Jacques Callot

After we talked last week about an unsuccessful effort to bypass the Court's discovery dispute procedures, I thought it might be interesting to talk about what those procedures are, for people who don't practice here day in and day out.

A discovery dispute is a special procedure that allows the parties to receive a (relatively) quick hearing to resolve issues that arise during discovery. Bringing a discovery dispute is the only way the Court allows the parties to address these kinds of discovery issues in a typical District of Delaware case (including both patent and non-patent cases).

Is This in the Rules or What?

Discovery disputes are not mentioned in the local rules, but all of the judges have discovery dispute procedures in their form scheduling orders. ...

View

We Three Agree — Me, Myself, and I (Or: Court Strikes Expert's Opinion That Secretly Relied On His Own Anonymous Writing)

Emily DiBenedetto, Nov. 19, 2020
Rule 37 Sanctions

Mirrored
Mirrored Alex Iby, Unsplash

Last month, Judge Burke struck "a substantial portion" of an expert's infringement report after the expert relied on his own anonymous peer review to prove infringement, without disclosing that he had been the author.

The truth did not come out until the deposition.

The Expert Secretly Relied On His Own Prior Anonymous Writing

Plaintiffs in this action allege infringement only via the doctrine of equivalents, arguing that the differences between the accused drug and the claimed drug are insubstantial. Defendant argues that the differences are substantial, relying in part on a 2016 article showing that the accused drug performs significantly better than the claimed drug.

Plaintiffs' expert reports criticized the 2016 article based on two …

View

Archive