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 …
This train don't stop until the close of fact discovery (... unless the Court stops it)Jed Dela Cruz, Unsplash
The Court issued an oral order in airSlate, Inc. v. Inkit, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1307-RGA-SRF (D. Del.) yesterday, and it's a good reminder of a general rule that frequent D. Del. practitioners already know: once discovery starts, it generally proceeds even while a Rule 12 motion is pending.
The Court's order yesterday described how the defendant in airSlate had objected to producing its source code solely on the basis that a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending:
Defendant agreed to produce source code in its response to Request for Production …
"Loco-Crazy Good Cookers, Inc." wins IP/DE's 2024 Best Company Name Ever award.AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Parties sometimes think that a stay pending an instituted IPR is almost a given. But while a stay is more likely than not, it's not a sure thing.
Last month we saw a even a stipulated stay pending IPRdenied by visiting Judge Choe-Groves (in the time since, by the way, that denial has held firm, and the Court issued a scheduling order).
This week Judge Fallon denied a stay pending an instituted IPR in North Atlantic Imports, LLC v. Loco-Crazy Good Cookers, Inc., C.A. No. 23-999-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Nov. 19, 2024). The Court noted that there were non-patent claims …
Deposition errata is often the source of mild-moderate disagreements. It's not uncommon to see complaints that an errata is really just an attempt to reform otherwise damaging testimony, rather than a mere correction of a misheard word. Occasionally the issue will be large enough to warrant a discovery dispute.
Less common, but not unheard of, is a dispute over the accuracy of a transcript of a Court hearing. To begin, unlike in depositions, the Court reporter normally does not formally request errata except in the case of trials. You get what you get and anything after that is in something of a procedural gray area. To the extent the parties do have errata disputes, there is no clear route to …
Before you get too excited, defendants, this case involved a scheduling order using Judge Connolly's form, which provides only a single round of infringement and invalidity contentions, and explicitly requires good cause to amend.
Most District of Delaware scheduling orders include two rounds of contentions (initial and final), with the second round typically coming around the close of fact discovery. It is unlikely to be as difficult to amend in cases like those.
Regardless, I thought this was an interesting result worthy of a post. In Cognipower LLC v. Fantasia Trading, LLC, C.A. No. 19-2293-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Court stayed the case …
I have to assume "Orca Security Ltd." is a company that provides bodyguards for killer whales.Lachlan Gowen, Unsplash
Given how often parties use search terms, you'd think we would see precedent on them more often. But opinions about the use of search terms for document production only come out occasionally. It may be that many of these disputes are resolved on teleconferences, where the generally escape the notice of anyone who is not on that case.
Anyway, this week the Court unsealed a new opinion regarding document production and the use of search terms.
In Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz., Inc., C.A. No. 23-758-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the parties agreed in an ESI stipulation that they would search using search terms. The searched terms resulted in about 110,000 unique hits in the defendants documents—but it produced only about 25,000 documents. It argued the remainder were non-responsive to the plaintiff's discovery requests.
The plaintiff moved to compel production of the remaining 85,000 documents. The Court granted the motion, relying primarily on the fact that the defendant is withholding so many documents that hit the search terms:
The ESI Order provides that "the parties will have substantially completed production of all non-privileged custodial ESI responsive to the parties' Priority Requests, subject to any unresolved objections[,]" by August 30, 2024. (D.1. 71 at 6; D.I. 106) Even if the court were to construe this provision broadly to support Defendant's position that documents hitting on search terms can be withheld based on relevance,' relevance is broadly construed in the context of discovery. . . . The fact that Defendant is withholding more than seventy-five percent of the documents hitting on the parties' agreed-upon search terms amounts to "specific, compelling evidence suggesting that [Defendant] is withholding responsive ESI material." Doe 1 v. Baylor Univ., 2018 WL 11471253, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 6, 2018).
. . . Plaintiff explains that search terms combining "orca* AND" with keywords deemed to be relevant to the issues in the case resulted in about 35,000 unique documents across custodians, but Defendant's production includes less than 3,000 documents for that keyword combination. . . . These documents are facially relevant, satisfying Plaintiff's initial burden to establish the relevance of the requested information. . . . Defendant offers no argument or examples supporting its position that documents hitting on these agreed-upon search terms are not responsive.
Orca Security Ltd. v. Wiz., Inc., C.A. No. 23-758-JLH-SRF, D.I. 182 (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2024).
It's interesting that the Court focused primarily on the relevance of the documents to the issues in the case, rather than whether the documents were responsive to plaintiff's discovery requests. The scope of the plaintiff's requests was not discussed in the decision—possibly because ...
Behold, our claim chart. Look upon it and despair!AI-Generated, displayed with permission
Parties in patent cases often fight about the sufficiency of infringement and invalidity contentions. Parties may offer broad initial contentions, keeping their options open as the case develops and avoiding the cost of detailed contentions. The opposing party, though, may want detailed contentions to narrow and explain the case and to tie parties to their positions.
Often, one side or the other moves to compel more detailed contentions knowing that, if they lose and if the opposing party refuses to supplement, they will be better positioned to exclude the more detailed contentions inevitably offered later.
The defendant in Almondnet, Inc. v. Viant Technology LLC, C.A. No. …
Remote trial testimony was briefly a hot-button issue in the district (on account of the whole plague thing). But in our new, vaccinated, world it has receded to a background issue only rarely surfacing.
So there's not many opinions on exactly what sort of hardships might qualify someone to testify remotely under Rule 43(a). Thankfully Judge Fallon's opinion today in AAG Glass, LLC v. Laminados de Aller, S.A., C.A. No. 21-638-SRF (D. Del. July 15, 2024) (Mem. Order), gives us a few examples of what hardships do not justify remote testimony.
Losing Your Visa After A DUI
Okay, this one is a bit of a gimme. The defendant witness, Roberta Garcia, was a …
"Whatcha doin'?" "I'm writing out my 543rd trade secret. One hundred more to go."AI-Generated, displayed with permission
In my experience it's fairly uncommon to see a party get multiple days of deposition time with a fact witness deponent, outside of a few recurring circumstances (e.g. translated depositions). That's why I thought it was worth pointing out the ruling unsealed today in Gemedy, Inc. v. The Carlyle Group, Inc., C.A. No. 23-157-CFC-SRF (D. Del. June 7, 2024).
In Gemedy, plaintiff alleged misappropriation of 643 trade secrets, all authored (or co-authored, for 11 of them) by one person over an eight-year period. The defendant sought to depose that one person for four days, given their scope of …
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.
