A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware

The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge

Chapter 8 of my personal favorite writing guide, Richard Wydick's Plain English for Lawyers, counsels against the use of elegant variation. For the uninitiated, elegant variation is the practice of using different words to express the same concept in order to spice up the writing. This tends to make things more confusing, especially in technical arenas. As an avowed logophile, it's one of the book's lessons that I struggle with the most.

I bring it up today, because I can't help but wonder if elegant variation played a role in the denial of a motion for summary judgment in Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Charter Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 18-2033-RGA-MPT. Charter had moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, citing …

Consistent with a recent trend in the District, Judge Thynge recently ordered parties to justify the continued sealing of a proposed amended complaint—even though the plaintiff had followed the ordinary sealing procedures and had submitted a redacted version of its motion to amend, including redactions to the proposed amended pleading.

Shortly after she issued her R&R denying plaintiff's motion to amend, Judge Thynge put the following notice on the docket:

ORAL ORDER: Although the Motion to Amend the Complaint was filed under seal, within ten (10) days of the docketing of the Report and Recommendation at DI 266, counsel shall file an explanation, limited to two (2) pages, as to why the Amended Complaint should remain under seal. Ordered …