A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Sanctions

Wasted Effort? Court Denies Spoliation Sanctions After Prototype Goes Missing from Inventor's Home

Andrew E. Russell, May 9, 2022
Spoliation Sanctions

Fire Department
Mor Shani, Unsplash

In IOEngine v. Paypal Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 18-452-WCB (D. Del.), the inventor kept a box of 33 prototypes for his invention in his basement "laboratory."

One of the prototypes—the "MediKey device"—had been the subject of intense dispute in a previous case on his patent. It had been analyzed by experts for both sides, who disputed its functionality and whether he had accurately described it to the PTO (as part of an inequitable conduct claim).

After a series of electrical incidents and fires in his laboratory, involving visits from various electricians and fire control personnel, the inventor discovered that the prototypes were in a new box and that the MediKey device was missing. …

View

Initial Production of Only 13 E-mails, and Counsel's Shifting Explanations, Results in Sanctions on Patent Defendant

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 18, 2021
E-mail Production Discovery Dispute

PLEASE STAND BY . . . while we figure out why we only produced 13 e-mails
PLEASE STAND BY . . . while we figure out why we only produced 13 e-mails RCA

Yesterday, Magistrate Judge Fallon granted a motion for sanctions against One World Technologies, Inc., a defendant in a patent action, for failing to produce the bulk of its e-mail until 13 months after the plaintiff's initial request.

Defendant One World initially produced only 13 e-mails in response to plaintiff's requests, served back in April 2020. According to a later declaration of counsel, One World's attorneys had received multiple gigabyte's worth of .pst files containing e-mail from the agreed-upon custodians. But they found those files to be corrupted, and they relied on their clients' determination that all but 134 of the e-mails were unrecoverable. …

View

Judge Noreika Sanctions Patentee for Mistreating Source Code

Andrew E. Russell, July 13, 2021
Source Code Protective Order

Fire. I couldn't find an image of raining brimstone.
Fire. I couldn't find an image of raining brimstone. Ricardo Gomez Angel, Unsplash

On Monday, Judge Noreika sanctioned a patentee plaintiff for not following the protective order regarding source code.

Here is what the plaintiff did:

Plaintiff violated the Protective Order at least six times over a period of almost one year by: 1) creating an electronic copy of the source code on July 6, 2020; 2) sending that electronic copy to a vendor that had not signed the Acknowledgement and Agreement to Be Bound by Stipulated Protective Order (which actually violated two provisions of the Protective Order); 3) failing to maintain a log of all copies; 4) storing an electronic and apparently unencrypted copy of the source code …
View

Plaintiffs’ Counsel Barred from Further Calls to Chambers After Call About "Meritless" TRO Motion

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 28, 2021
Sanctions TRO

A sweetgum ball obliterated by a hatchet, a fate similar to that of plaintiffs' <a href='#' class='abbreviation' data-bs-toggle='tooltip' data-placement='top' title='Temporary Restraining Order'>TRO</a>
A sweetgum ball obliterated by a hatchet, a fate similar to that of plaintiffs' TRO Andrew E. Russell, CC BY 2.0

The practice in Delaware has long been that calls to chambers are generally only appropriate in a relatively narrow range of circumstances, and "please decide my motion immediately" is not one of them.

It looks like one plaintiff's counsel may have learned this this hard way on Wednesday when they filed a TRO seeking to enforce an arbitration clause in an employment agreement, and then immediately called the court to urge that it receive immediate attention. Here is the Court's response, issued the same day as …

View

Judge Andrews Gives Parties Homework to Discourage Discovery Disputes

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 3, 2020
Discovery Dispute Sanctions

Excellent, now set it on fire . . . the hoop
Excellent, now set it on fire . . . the hoop Border Collie jumping through the hoop at NZDAC Gore New Zealand, Andrea Lightfoot, Unsplash

In Delaware, there are a few hoops to jump through if you want to bring a discovery dispute before the Court. Local Rule 7.1.1 is the most basic, and requires the parties to make "reasonable efforts" to resolve their disputes, including verbal communications between opposing Delaware Counsel.

Next, each Judge has their particular procedures for bringing the dispute, either requiring a joint phone call to chambers (Judges Connolly, Noreika, and Andrews) or a joint letter outlining the issues and confirming that the parties have met and conferred (Judge Stark). In either case, the parties …

View

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

Emily S. 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

Court Orders "Unusual" Preliminary 30(b)(6) Deposition, Suggests Sanctions After Defendant Potentially "Hiding the Ball" on Damages

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 18, 2020
Damages Sua Sponte

Google tells me
Google tells me "hide the ball" is a football thing. Dave Adamson, Unsplash

In Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment, Ltd. v. Nomadix, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1394-RGA (D. Del.), plaintiff sent RFPs for various financial documents, but defendant produced only a single page profit and loss statement for each year, claiming no more was available.

Plaintiff brought a discovery dispute and asked Judge Andrews to order production of any further documents in defendant's possession.

Judge Andrews declined. Instead, he sua sponte suggested that the parties resolve this via a 30(b)(6) deposition about the kinds of financial information that defendant keeps:

[D]o a 30(b)(6) deposition and find out if there are any other documents. And you know, …
View

Substantial Completion Is Really More of a State of Mind

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 8, 2020
Substantial Completion Sanctions

Typical small production of recent unimportant documents served after substantial completion deadline
Typical small production of recent unimportant documents served after substantial completion deadline Can you find the book you need?, Carles Rabada, Unsplash

"Substantial completion of document production" is not exactly a bright line.

Is it more than half?

More than 90%?

At least in Delaware, cases interpreting the issue are light on the ground. Usually, when presented with a steaming pile of documents after the substantial completion deadline, the parties will work out some modest schedule extension without any court intervention. This is probably for the best, but it means that the parties are usually working from a blank slate when negotiating the necessity and length of any extension.

Luckily for us, Judge Burke issued an Oral Order …

View

Additional Sanctions In My Favorite Delaware Case

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Oct. 1, 2020
Sanctions

The Court (top center, riding an eagle) ordering additional sanctions
The Court (top center, riding an eagle) ordering additional sanctions Jupiter Fighting the Giants, Jacopo Zucchi

Following on Yesterday's post where we noted the odd and pleasing use of "Kludgy," I would like to use today's post to bring attention to another recent Delaware opinion which contains what I can only assume is the only use of the phrase "[y]ou can work with legal but at the end you will have your face burried [sic, obviously] in s***!" in a legal opinion.

The case is Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Workspot, Inc., C.A. No. 18-588, D.I. 411 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2020), and it is a true ray of light in these dark days.

The opinion describes …

View
Newer

Archive