A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


DED
United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Sanction Sanctuary

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 11, 2025
Musical Theater Sanctions

I am pleased to announce that, starting with Andrew's next post, we will be pivoting to a new format. No longer will we be analyzing the developments in IP law with mere written words. Instead, we will be creating Schoolhouse Rock style musical videos. Andrew's surprisingly moving singing voice will be accompanied by my own interpretive dance—leading you through the intricacies of the days' cases like a bee describing the way to honey.

This is perhaps my favorite picture I've used on the blog
This is perhaps my favorite picture I've used on the blog AI-Generated, displayed with permission

The subject of today's post, CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Security, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1477-CFC-CJB, D.I. 413 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2025) will also be the subject of our first song, "Sanction Sanctuary."

The title comes from the plaintiff's motion for sanctions -- unusual in the district outside of the Pennypack context. The issue there was that the defendant had produced almost all of its documents after the substantial completion deadline, resulting in extra work for the plaintiff, who sought fees as compensation. The defendant argued that the late production was not sanctionable because it was caused in large part by an error in their document collection that had initially missed all documents before 2018.

Judge Burke ...

View

New Data Point: 45 Minutes of Meeting-and-Conferring Insufficient for "Multiple Discovery Disputes That Involve a Number of Broad Issues with Room for Reasonable Parties to Compromise"

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 10, 2025
Meet-and-Confer

We'll all get it right eventually
Simon Ray, Unsplash

We've posted twice recently on Magistrate Judge Tennyson's practices regarding how long the parties should meet-and-confer before bringing a discovery dispute. In the prior posts, the parties presented a single discovery dispute issue. The parties initially met-and-conferred for 12 minutes, and the Court sent them back to meet-and-confer further. The Court later OK'd the dispute after they spent a total of 31 minutes on the issue.

On Friday, the Court issued an order in another case giving some more insight into this meet-and-confer requirement. In Media Content Protection LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 20-1240-CFC-EGT (D. Del.), the parties filed a motion to raise three discovery issues with the Court, including two …

View

Is the Law on Contention Interrogatory Responses Evolving? Judges OK Deferring Contention Interrogatory Response Until After Claim Construction Ruling, or Even After Expert Reports

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 7, 2025
Contention Interrogatories

Zig Zag
Jack Finnigan, Unsplash

Contention interrogatory responses are a frequent topic of dispute. In theory, using damages as an example, the way it works is this:

  1. Defendant, who does not have the burden, sends a contention interrogatory.
  2. Plaintiff provides contentions.
  3. Defendant takes discovery based on the contentions.
  4. Plaintiff provides expert reports that fairly elaborate on the contentions.
  5. Defendant responds using the discovery it took based on the contentions.
  6. Plaintiff offers expert testimony at trial that is a fair elaboration on their reports.
  7. Defendant moves to strike any testimony that goes beyond the reports.

The process can get hung up on step 2, however, because parties may try to short-circuit the process and avoid giving away or getting nailed down on …

View

I Grant Thee Leave

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Feb. 4, 2025
Summary Judgment

All of the Delaware judges have rules in their form scheduling orders limiting the circumstances in which summary judgment motions can be filed. Most notably, each forbids the filing of summary judgment motions in ANDA cases absent leave. In other patent cases, SJ motions cannot be filed more than 10 days before the deadline for dispositive motions without leave.

Lawrence Kayku, Unsplash

As part of my ongoing series of posts about analytics when I have nothing else to write about (why can't I find Al Capone's cave?), I've compiled some statistics on how likely these motions are to be granted, based on the issue (infringement, validity, something weird).

Looking at all the cases for the last three years (and a bit extra so I could get to 20 and not have to do math) the general success rates for these is a pretty abysmal 20%. Validity issues fair a bit better at about 29%. Infringement/noninfringement also beat the average at about 25%. Weirdly, inequitable conduct seems to fair the worst, at a whopping 0.0% (rounding up).

I've got some more analytics on specific judges, but I'm saving them in case I need another one of these on Thursday.

View

Court Orders Each of Seven Attorneys Involved in § 1782 Application to Show Cause for Why They Have Not Violated the Rules of Professional Conduct

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 3, 2025
Model Rules of Professional Conduct § 1782

Lego
Jackson Simmer, Unsplash

We were a bit slow on the draw on this one. You may have already read about it in Law360. But it's significant enough that I think we should post about it anyway.

Last month, in Vestolit GmbH v. Shell Chemical LP, C.A. No. 24-1401-CFC (D. Del.), two applicants filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application seeking leave to serve subpoenas on a company in the United States to get discovery related to a foreign proceeding.

The application itself referred only to subpoenas against the company, but the proposed order incorporated a subpoena against an individual, who was not mentioned in the application itself.

The Court rejected the application, at least initially, …

View

Update on Monday's 12-Minute Meet-and-Confer Post, Plus Guidance from Court on Whether Motion to Stay Is a "Discovery Dispute"

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 31, 2025
Motion to Stay Meet-and-Confer

Clock
Akram Huseyn, Unsplash

On Monday, we posted about how the Court had denied a motion to bring a discovery dispute, because a 12-minute meet-and-confer was not long enough.

If you were curious, as I was, about how long of a meet-and-confer would be sufficient, we now have a data point. The parties re-filed their letter after conducting an additional 19-minute meet-and-confer, and the Court granted their motion and permitted them to bring the dispute to the Court.

So the data points we have so far are that 12 minutes is insufficient, and that two meet-and-confers totaling 31 minutes (12+19) were sufficient.

There is obviously a range of times in between those numbers that might or might not …

View

Court Orders Production of Litigation Funding Information—But Only to the Extent It Relates to the Value of the Patents

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 29, 2025
Litigation Funding

Is he watching via Robocast, I wonder?
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

When people say that D. Del. is "against litigation funding," they imply that the Court has some kind of general bias against parties who use litigation funding. That's wrong. I've never seen a Delaware judge dislike or rule against a party because the party used litigation funding. And the Court as a whole is certainly not biased against plaintiffs (or defendants), funding or no funding.

With all of that said, I thought it was worth noting that Judge Burke recently ordered production of litigation funding material to the extent it related to the value of the patents.

After reviewing litigation-funding-related documents in camera, he ordered production of those that relate to the value of …

View

Raindance Returns

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Jan. 28, 2025
Motion to Dismiss

Old timers remember RainDance Techs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33875 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016). After the appendix of forms was banished from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Andrews' opinion in Raindance was among the first in the nation to hold that complaints alleging infringement had to do more than simply list the patent and the product as in the old Form 18.

reza shayestehpour, Unsplash

For a couple years it was the citation of choice in the district for motions to dismiss, with every defendant arguing that the complaint lacked sufficient detail relating their product to the asserted patent claims.

In the years since, …

View

Court Denies Motion to Bring Discovery Dispute Because Meet-and-Confer Was Not Long Enough

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 27, 2025
Discovery Disputes Meet-and-Confer

Will they use a phone like this? No. But I couldn't find a good image for
Will they use a phone like this? No. But I couldn't find a good image for "Zoom meeting where everyone but that one person has their camera off." Quino Al, Unsplash

We haven't had many posts yet on the Court's newest magistrate judge, Judge Tennyson. But we got an interesting data point on Friday when the Court ruled on a motion to schedule a teleconference to resolve a discovery dispute.

In Inari Medical, Inc. v. Inquis Medical, Inc., C.A. No. 24-1023-CFC-EGT (D. Del.), Chief Judge Connolly referred all discovery disputes to Judge Tennyson. Shortly thereafter, the parties submitted a form motion following her guidelines to initiate a discovery dispute.

The motion identified the amount of …

View

This Is Why You Should Identify Claim Construction Issues Early—If You Can

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 24, 2025

Claim construction in this case was originally set for 2020—before the parties stipulated to cancel it.
Claim construction in this case was originally set for 2020—before the parties stipulated to cancel it. Kelly Sikkema, Unsplash

Yesterday, Judge Hall granted a post-trial JMOL motion in Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., C.A. No. 19-2342-JLH (D. Del.), finding no infringement as a matter of law.

The motion resolved a relatively straightforward claim construction issue: what the word "purity" means in the claims.

The patentee said it meant chemical purity, while the accused infringer argued it meant "polymorphic" purity. The patent as a whole is directed towards crystal forms of a drug, and discussed purity of the crystal form—"polymorphic" purity—but also mentions chemical purity. The patenteee agreed that, if "purity" means polymorphic …

View
Newer
Older

Archive