I always find that it can be helpful to see how judges rule on things, even if the rulings are kind of fact-specific, because it can still give you a sense of how they will rule on other things. (Thus, we have a blog.)
In Attentive Mobile Inc. v. Stodge, Inc., d/b/a Postscript, C.A. No. 23-87-CJB (D. Del. Jun. 12, 2025), Judge Burke addressed a Daubert motion to preclude a damages opinion that included revenue from non-infringing functionality in its royalty base, on the basis that it failed to apportion damages.
We missed this when it came out, but Judge Fallon issued an opinion in March that addressed whether a defendant could evade service of process by, he claims, not opening the door when the process server tried to serve him.
In Pelham v. Vbit Techs. Corp., C.A. No. 23-162-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), a securities action, the plaintiff filed a Return of Service from their process server stating that they had served one of the defendants by personally delivering the complaint to the defendant at home—but the defendant disagreed:
On March 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Return of Service, of the original summons and complaint. (D.I. 6) The affidavit of the process server states that on March 7, 2023, he personally served Jin Gao at his residence. . . . Subsequently, on April 5, 2023, Gao's counsel emailed Pelham's counsel, who filed the Return of Service, informing counsel that Gao was not personally served. . . . Gao's counsel did not receive a response from Pelham's counsel.
Id., D.I. 70 at 13.
The defendant submitted what he claimed was doorbell camera video to rebut the claim that he was served—but the Court did not consider that video, because ...
We noted last month that there have been more assignments to visiting judges lately, including to visiting Judge Campbell Barker of the Eastern District of Texas.
Later last month, Judge Barker issued an order in 17 cases asking parties to let the Court know whether they consent to hearings or trial in the Eastern District of Texas:
Within 28 days . . . . each party shall file a notice stating whether the party consents to trial, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), hearings, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(b), or both in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
Yesterday was the deadline to respond for most cases. We put together some quick, rough statistics of …
Federal Courts is one of those classes that everyone has a tumultuous relationship with. My own professor on the subject continues to vex me by running a rival legal blog. Like Boat News before them, they shall be long forgotten to history whilst IP/DE reigns ascendant. Their name spoken only by those frightened few who stumbled upon their dark and damp remains.
Perhaps they can still pivot to videoNOAA, Unsplash
In any event, while issues of federalism, preemption, and the like do not often rear their heads in my practice, they often spawn an interesting opinion when they do. Case in point, Judge Fallon's opinion in Convatec, Inc. v. HR Pharms., Inc., C.A. No. 24-1248-RGA-SRF (D. Del …
Apparenly this is a picture of a large magnet, rather than a particle accelerator. Either way, it looks like someone left their binder in it.Brandon Style, Unsplash
We've talked about this before, but it was so long ago that I think it's worth pointing out again. Typically, left to their own devices, parties in patent cases will schedule initial contentions, then claim construction and a Markman hearing, and then final contentions.
In theory, the final contentions can then reflect claim constructions. In practice, it doesn't always work out that way, given that a Markman opinion may come out after the hearing anyway. If you want to have constructions before final contentions, you need to leave a fair …
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).
The Delaware Chapter of the Federal Bar Association held its annual lunch today and, as usual, the District and Bankruptcy Courts provided updates on the state of the courts. There wasn't a lot of new information this year, but here are some quick notes on some relevant items:
District court case filings here in D. Del. were down only 2%, compared to 14% nationally
Criminal filings were up 14%
There was a 7% drop in patent case filings, but we still have 39% of all ANDA cases
We are still the biggest court for competitor case filings
The Court strives to be fair and not partial to either plaintiffs or defendants
"Back in my day, we locked our first year associates in a room stacked with banker's boxes for weeks on end! None of this 'search term' mumbo jumbo!"AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Judge Williams issued a lengthy decision today in GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 24-512-GBW (D. Del.), addressing a number of disputes relating to proposed protective and ESI orders in multiple related actions.
There is a lot of interesting material in the decision, but one ruling in particular caught my eye, because it's an issue that comes up a lot: whether a party has to use search terms to search ESI.
Most, but not all, of our judges have adopted the Court's Default Standard for Discovery, Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI")—a document that, despite it's catchy name, is usually referred to as the "Default Standard."
The Default Standard places the option of using search terms in the producing party's hands:
If the producing party elects to use search terms to locate potentially responsive ESI, it shall disclose the search terms to the requesting party. Absent a showing of good cause, a requesting party may request no more than 10 additional terms terms to be used in connection with the electronic search. Focused terms, rather than over-broad terms (e.g., product and company names), shall be employed. The producing party shall search (i) the non-custodial data sources identified in accordance with paragraph 3(b); and (ii) emails and other ESI maintained by the custodians identified in accordance with paragraph 3(a).
Thus, producing parties sometimes decide not to use search terms, and to instead review and produce their ESI the old-fashioned way (potentially including hours of brutal contract-attorney document-by-document review).
Occasionally the opposing party will ask the producing party to use search terms. In cases governed by the Default Standard, I would expect a producing party to feel little pressure in responding "no," since the Default Standard recognizes that using search terms is optional.
Disco on disco, babyAI-Generated, displayed with permission
Discovery on discovery -- i.e., discovery asking how you're collecting documents, or when you started your litigation hold, or why all your documents smell like bubblegum -- is generally not allowed in Delaware (and most other districts I'm aware of). To get that sweet, sweet, disco on disco, you need to make a "threshold showing that significant, relevant, and non-cumulative information has been withheld or overlooked." British Telcoms. PLC v. IAC/Interactivecorp,. C.A. No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37271, at *21 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2020). This is a pretty big ask in the context of a discovery dispute, so we only rarely see the issue come up.
We missed an interesting decision from Judge Fallon last month. In Marquinez et al v. Dole Food Company Inc., C.A. No. 12-695-RGA-SRF, D.I. 582 (D. Del. Apr. 24, 2025), Judge Fallon rejected an attempt to "recycle" an expert opinion from a prior, related action.
Apparently the plaintiff had previously retained the experts, and attempted to re-use their prior expert opinions, by admitting the transcript of their prior testimony:
The Hendler Declaration confirms that both witnesses were formally retained as expert witnesses in a prior litigation, they served expert reports in the prior litigation, and both were asked but declined to serve as retained expert witnesses in this case. (D.I. 580 at ¶¶ 9-13) Plaintiffs …
This blog is for general informational purposes. It is not an offer to perform legal services, and should not be considered a substitute for legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be construed as forming an attorney-client relationship. If you have legal questions, please consult counsel in your jurisdiction.
