Never-before-seen photo of Mark Twain issuing his famous quote about statistics.Emily DiBenedetto, displayed with permission
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts prepares various statistical reports on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, including the Federal Court Management Statistics, which are released quarterly. The most recently released batch of data comes from December 31, 2024. You might see these data cited occasionally in motions to transfer, as I happened to notice in a District of Utah opinion denying a motion to transfer to the District of Delaware.
The first trend is that—surprise!—our judges are very busy.
There have been an average of nearly 2,400 pending cases at any given time over the last six years, and total District of …
You know what to do...AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Many District of Delaware scheduling orders in patent cases include deadlines for both "initial" and "final" infringement and invalidity contentions. In those cases, parties often argue that having a deadline for "final" invalidity contentions means there is no obligation to supplement in the period between initial and final contentions.
The obligation to supplement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, after all, states that it applies to Rule 26(a) disclosures, interrogatories, RFAs, and RFPs—but not explicitly to "contentions" required by a scheduling order.
I've seen the Court go both ways on this. The judges often seem willing to grant a motion to compel earlier responses, saying that early supplementation is required …
A 282 notice is a bit of an anachronism and a bit of a trap.
AI-Generated, displayed with permission
For those who don't read these latter sections of section 35 that often, it goes like this:
a party asserting invalidity or noninfringement shall give notice in the pleadings or otherwise in writing to the adverse party at least thirty days before the trial, of the country, number, date, and name of the patentee of any patent, the title, date, and page numbers of any publication to be relied upon as anticipation of the patent in suit [or] as showing the state of the art
Obviously, in the modern world of contentions, expert reports, moving type, etc., the parties are usually …
My feeling (informed, but not rigorously researched until a post later this week), is that enablement is slowly overtaking 101 as the vehicle of choice to attack the overreaching patent.
Preemption is no longer the watchword it once was in 101 jurisprudence (Impact Engine actually filed a petition for cert a couple months back asking "Whether the lodestar for determining patent eligibility under this Court’s two-step framework is whether the patent claims preempt basic technological or scientific building blocks").
Oh preemption, my guiding light. Lead me on the 101 inquiry.Casey Horner, Unsplash
At the same time, enablement is on a bit of an upswing following the Supreme Court's decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594,610 (2023) which reaffirmed the general principle that "if an inventor claims a lot, but enables only a little, the public does not receive its benefit of the bargain."
A few weeks ago, Judge Connolly gave us one of the more interesting decisions in this vein, when he granted a motion for summary judgment of no enablement in Spinal Generations, LLC v. Depuy Synthes, Inc., C.A. No. 22-1368-CFC, D.I. 220 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2025). The patents there covered a "method and device for delivering medicine to bone." (eds. note -- pretty cool title for a patent). In particular, the relevant claims required a "delivery pathway for [a] substance between at least one end of the insert and a portion of the bone."
It's relatively uncommon to see IP cases involving pro se litigants, given that corporations cannot appear pro se—but it does happen, such as when an inventor ends up being a party in a patent case.
If you find yourself as an attorney in a case involving a pro se party, it's worth remembering that a number of the District of Delaware rules include specific provisions for cases involving pro se litigants. Here are some examples.
Rule 5.2: Service
The first one is easy. Local Rule 5.2 says that, in cases involving parties that are not participants in the Court's electronic filing system (including pro se parties), you must file a certificate of service. This is …
"In my expert opinion, the patents are really valuable. The plaintiff told me so!"AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Exclusion of damages opinions are a frequenttopicforourblog. Daubert motions to exclude expert opinions tend to have a higher success rate than other types of Daubert motions, and it's worthwhile to have a good understanding of where the pitfalls lie, whether you are helping an expert draft a damages opinion or considering challenging one.
Yesterday, the Court granted a Daubert motion to exclude a damages opinion in a patent case. The expert relied on prior licenses to other patents from the same inventor to support his reasonable royalty opinion for the patents-in-suit. That requires showing that the prior …
Back in 2021, Chief Judge Connolly instituted a new ranking procedure for summary judgment motions in his cases, in which parties rank their SJ motions and, if the top-ranked motion is denied, all lower-ranked motions are denied as well. The Court later expanded that procedure to encompass Daubert motions as well. Judge Williams has adopted it (for SJ motions only), and Judge Noreika has experimented with it—although at least one other judge has declined to adopt it.
To put the procedures in context, judges on the Court have long applied various measures to control the workload generated by summary judgment motions. Former Chief Judge Sleet, for example, required parties to request leave before filing summary judgment …
We've writtenbefore about how delay can kill your discovery motions. We got another straightforward example on Monday in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 20-133, D.I. 340 (D. Del. Mar 31, 2025).
There, the defendants sought depositions of two foreign inventors through the Hague convention. The defendants have known the relevance of the inventors' knowledge since at least July, 2022, but only moved for issuance of letters rogatory in December 2024.
The case was stayed for a portion of that time, but in total, the Court found that there was no good reason that it should have taken so long to seek this discovery:
My name is Lindsey Gellar, and I am an associate at Shaw Keller, posting for the first time here. Yes, Andrew has finally managed to rope another lackey (associate) into writing for the blog. Today, I'm going to look at what it takes to plead equitable defenses in the District of Delaware.
When it comes to pleading most affirmative defenses, the bar is on the floor. An affirmative defense does not need to be plausible to survive; it must merely provide fair notice of the issue involved. Internet Media Corp. v. Hearst Newspapers, LLC, C.A. No. 10-690-SLR, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126788, at *7 (D. Del. …
I'm not sure why the AI image generator made the judge so much bigger than the traffic they are directing, but it seems somehow appropriate.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
I've noticed, and heard from others, that it seems like there were a lot of new case filings in the District of Delaware this month.
I was curious if that's true, so I did some unscientific research based on how many PACER new-case e-mails I've received. So far, for March 2025, I've seen 127 of these. That's more than any of the 16 prior months, only one of which broke 100. And it's quite a bit more than the 49 I received in January, or the 74 I received in February.
March of last year (2024) was busy as well, with 97 such e-mails. But, even if we get no more filings today or Monday, this year's number will top last year's by more than 30%.
Of course, not all cases are the same. A litigation campaign by an NPE against many defendants is very different from a true competitor patent litigation. From a quick review, the filings this month look like a mix of both. And these include a mix of various other civil filings, not just patent cases. So it's hard to say just how big of an increase in actual workload it may be.
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.
