A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Subpoena

Fun fact! If your attorney bills $450/hr in .1 hr increments and does nothing but take your $40 and hand it to a deponent, the bill to do so may cost you more than the $40 fee itself.
Fun fact! If your attorney bills $450/hr in .1 hr increments and does nothing but take your $40 and hand it to a deponent, the bill to do so may cost you more than the $40 fee itself. AI-Generated, displayed with permission

When it comes to IP cases in federal court, dealing with subpoenas can be a bit out of the ordinary.

It's not that they never come up. It's normal to have a couple of subpoenas per side in cases that make it to the close of fact discovery (e.g., for prior art, third party inventors, etc.), sometimes more. But not all cases make it to that stage, and many cases don't involve any subpoenas at all.

It also doesn't take much manpower to fill out a form subpoena. It's a task often given to newer associates or paralegals. More senior attorneys may not get involved in the service process at all, unless something goes wrong.

That said, it's easier than you might think for something to go wrong. The rules governing subpoenas are pretty archaic and weird compared to the rest of the federal rules. FRCP 45, for example, requires "tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law" when serving a subpoena.

Often this payment is handled by a process server. But, sometimes, they don't handle the payment. What happens then?

The subpoena may be ...

Danger Keep Out
Edwin Hooper, Unsplash

Earlier this week, visiting Judge McCalla issued an order denying a motion to preclude a third-party factual declaration. Along the way, the Court addressed an ethics rule that should probably come up more often than it does.

As set forth by the Court, ABA Model Rule 3.4(f) precludes attorneys from requesting that third parties withhold relevant information from another party:

Model Rule 3.4(f) states a “lawyer shall not . . . request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party.”

Arctic Innovations, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., C.A. No. 23-158-JPM, at 4 (D. Del. June 4, 2025).

This could be a land mine for the …

Travel
Dino Reichmuth, Unsplash

We wrote last month about the "mansplaining brief," which caught some eyes around town when it (and the declaration attached to it) accused the Court of "gender harassment and discrimination."

We set out the full background in our post, but generally the Court ordered the sole member of a Mavexar-related LLC to attend a hearing here in Delaware.

She then filed a motion for reconsideration offering numerous objections, including among other things that (1) the Court had no power under FRCP 45 to compel her attendance, since she lives in Texas; and (2) that she is a working mother and therefore unable to travel to Delaware.

(She also said that she "feels harassed" by …