ARTICLE
15 September 2022

Delaware Judge Enforces Patent Case Disclosure Requirements

WB
Womble Bond Dickinson

Contributor

Being different is our normal way of working. It's not just what we do, it's how we do it.

You'll benefit from more than just the skills and know-how you'd expect from a pioneering law firm; our technology specialists, process and project management leaders, accountants and tax advisers work alongside lawyers with specialist sector expertise – from business to government.

Working side by side, we'll find clever solutions to your age-old problems.

With 1,300 professionals across 39 offices in the US and UK, we're equipped to tackle mission-critical challenges, wherever you do business.

Want the proof? It's in our track record. With our straight-talking, entrepreneurial approach, we’ve set new industry precedents, achieved market firsts and delivered trailblazing work for our clients.

So, whatever your future holds, we're here for you with A Point of View Like No Other.

The District of Delaware has recently instituted several requirements in patent cases, many in response to the overwhelming caseload in part due to a judicial vacancy.
United States Delaware Intellectual Property
Womble Bond Dickinson are most popular:
  • with readers working within the Property industries

The District of Delaware has recently instituted several requirements in patent cases, many in response to the overwhelming caseload in part due to a judicial vacancy. In addition to the specific patent standing orders that all judges have issued, there are other standing orders aimed at efficiency and disclosure.

For example, Chief Judge Colm Connolly has specific orders requiring heightened Rule 7.1 disclosures and disclosures of third-party litigation funding. When these standing orders were issued, it was unknown how the Court would be handling these requirements. It is now clear the Court will enforce the requirements and parties not complying with those requirements will face consequences.

On August 17, 2022, in Longbeam Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 21-1559 (CFC), Chief Judge Connolly issued an oral order in response to a parties' Rule 7.1 disclosure and third-party funding statements. The Court stated, "I have concerns about Longbeam's standing to pursue this action and whether it has complied with the Court's standing order regarding third-party litigation funding arrangements." The Court granted the defendant's request to conduct discovery on third-party litigation funding including but not limited to "documents and testimony from Longbeam's principals relevant to the issues of standing and third-party litigation funding, including the nature and extent of IP edge's interests in this litigation and the asserted patents." The Court stayed the case to conduct this discovery. This demonstrates that parties need to take the disclosure requirements seriously to avoid negative consequences. The best practice is to err on side of disclosure.

Overall, clients with litigation in the District of Delaware should be prepared for the possibility of more requirements and procedures. Last month at a Delaware Federal Bar event, Chief Judge Connolly provided the Court's Annual Report on the Court's status. Chief Judge Connolly discussed the heavy case load of the Court, which has more patent and security cases than most all Courts in the country when you look at weighted averages. Chief Judge Connolly discussed methods the Court would be using including: utilization of magistrates, special masters, and further orders. This month, the Court also announced a new filing deadline of 5:00 pm instead of 6:00 pm for filings other than initial pleadings, which is effective September 1, 2022.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More