In our recent post about the Court finding a protective order violation by an inventor / principal / expert / man of many hats, we promised a second post about how the accused infringer used PDF metadata from PACER in a clever way to establish the protective order violation. This is that second post.
Basically, the parties disputed who had edited a document containing Attorney's Eyes Only information. The inventor had switched counsel, but the moving party claimed that the edits were made by the inventor, not counsel.
Screenshot of the metadata for a highlight as it appears in Adobe AcrobatD.I. 81-17
The moving party showed that the PDF with the AEO information included highlights, and that the metadata …
The protective order hearing last week was even more interesting than anticipated. We laid out the background our last post, but here are the basics:
In this patent action, the inventor of the patents-in-suit is also a principal of the plaintiff entity Rein Tech, as well as the prosecuting attorney, the testifying expert, and (likely) a fact witness. He's doing a lot here.
Because he is the principal and a competitive decision maker, and even though he is a testifying expert who apparently issued a report, the parties (more or less) agreed that he is precluded from seeing Attorneys' Eyes Only ("AEO") information under the protective order in the action.
Plaintiff's principal with his towering pillar of hatsAI-Generated, displayed with permission
If you happen to be in Wilmington, DE tomorrow—perhaps as a summer associate—and feel like attending an interesting hearing, it could be worth stopping by Judge Noreika's Courtroom 4A at 10am.
The hearing involves an alleged protective order violation by plaintiff Rein Tech and its principal. See Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Systems, LLC, C.A. No. 18-1683-MN, D.I. 170 (D. Del. May 16, 2025).
An Alleged Disclosure of AEO Information And an Alleged Prosecution Bar Violation
Rein Tech's principal apparently wears many hats. In addition to being the head of Rein Tech, he is also the named inventor on the asserted patents, the prosecuting attorney …
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 …
I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that snap removal is a patently ridiculous concept. Whatever lawyer first decided to float this argument deserves all of the praise I can heap upon them, both for the inventiveness and sheer audacity. In fact, lets take a moment to snap for them now:
Some say he's still writing that brief. . .AI-Generated, displayed with permission
In any case, snap removal has been the law in the Third Circuit since Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 902 F.3d 147, 152-53 (3d Cir. 2018), where the Court held that the plain language of the removal statute required snap removal even though the "result may be peculiar." Id. at 153-54.
But real snappies will be aware of the next big thing—"super snap" removals, which the Third Circuit has yet to address. A super (duper) snap removal (expialadocious) is where the plaintiff electronically submits the complaint, the defendant becomes aware of it through their docket-monitoring service of choice, and then removes the case before the filing has even been accepted by the clerk.
Snappy.
The Ninth Circuit—the first to address this growing class of removals—held that they "had a foundational defect—the absence of an existing civil action in state court—that rendered them not just defective but legally null and void." Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., 98 F.4th 947, 963 (9th Cir. 2024).
Judge Noreika had a decision yesterday on a middle-ground between regular and snap removal, which I have chosen to call semi-super snap removal (expialadocious). The plaintiff in Higgins v. Novartis Pharms. Corp, C.A. No. 25-245-MN (D. Del. May 14, 2025) filed ...
This is something we've talkedabout before, but the blog is always picking up new readers, so I figured it's worth revisiting for the newcomers.
Yesterday, Judge Noreika denied a stipulation to extend the page limits for the briefing on a motion to dismiss from the default 20/20/10 (opening/answering/reply) to 30/30/10:
ORAL ORDER re 16 Stipulation Regarding Motion to Dismiss - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation is DENIED. The Court will not extend the page limits. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 11/12/2024. (dlw) (Entered: 11/12/2024)
Advanced Accelerator Applications USA, Inc. v. Curium US LLC, C.A. NO. 24-1161-MN, D.I. 17 (D. Del. Nov. 12, 2024).
"Your honor, we'd like to drop most of our claims." "Ok, but you're not picking them back up."AI-Generated, displayed with permission
True D. Del. patent litigators know that, no matter which side you're on, you're going to have to narrow your claims and defenses before trial. It's just unwise and unworkable to go into a five-day trial with 100 claims, or with 30 prior art references and hundreds (or millions) of potential obviousness combinations. There isn't time to cover it all.
That said, sometimes the parties in patent cases delay case narrowing for a long time. And while the Court will often narrowing, it doesn't do that in every case. Instead, judges sometimes take the approach that …
I know which one I'd prefer.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Because cases tend to go away rapidly over time, either through settlement or on the merits, attorneys tend to be less experienced with motions that come up later in the case, particularly things that come up after the judgment (other than post-trial motions), or even after appeal.
One example is a motion to alter or amend a judgment under FRCP 59(e). You just don't see them that often. So I thought it was worth talking about a Rule 59(e) motion that the Court addressed last week.
In The United States of America v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2103 (D. Del.), the plaintiff argued that the …
Judge Noreika issued an interesting order yesterday denying a § 101 motion to dismiss. According to the docket, shortly after the defendant filed its motion to dismiss—and contrary to what we found when we last looked at this—the Court directed the parties to meet-and-confer on a proposed schedule.
While the motion to dismiss was pending, the Court held a scheduling conference and issued a scheduling order. In it, the parties agreed to a real case narrowing proposal (without court intervention!), with plaintiff to initially cut back to 20 asserted claims per patent and 50 total by initial contentions, and then further cut back to 25 total just before final contentions.
In AlterWAN, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1544-MN (D. Del.), the parties stipulated to a judgment of non-infringement after the Court construed certain terms of the patent, and then appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit vacated the stipulated judgment because it found it was not specific enough, and remanded the case. See AlterWAN, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 63 F.4th 18, 23 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[W]e cannot ‘ascertain the basis for the judgment’ of non-infringement, . . . because the parties did not adequately explain how the claim construction rulings related to the accused systems.”).
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.
