Delaware Intellectual Property Law Update
September 7, 2022
Publication| Intellectual Property
Welcome to the latest edition of the Richards, Layton & Finger Intellectual Property Law Update. As always, if you have questions about any of the decisions discussed below or the District of Delaware in general, please let us know.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware Releases Annual Report
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has released its 2022 Annual Report. The report notes that from 2014 to 2021, intellectual property cases have made up 46% of the court’s civil caseload; for 2021, that figure was 49%, nearly all of which were patent cases.
Read More >>
Magistrate Judge Fallon Denies Request to Exclude In-House Counsel from Accessing Certain Discovery Material
In Sight Sciences, Inc. v. Ivantis, Inc., No. 21-1317-VAC-SRF (Aug. 16, 2022) (oral order), a patent case, Magistrate Judge Fallon denied the plaintiff’s request to exclude in-house counsel from having access to discovery designated attorneys’ eyes only, which would have prevented an in-house attorney of the defendant from viewing such discovery.
Read More >>
Special Master (Soon-to-Be Sitting District Judge) Williams Partially Grants Motion to Strike Damages Theories
In TQ Delta, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, No. 15-611-RGA (Aug. 11, 2022), and related patent actions, Special Master Gregory B. Williams partially granted the defendants’ motion to strike as untimely certain damages theories. Earlier, the special master had ordered the plaintiff to supplement its Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures and damages interrogatory responses to identify the factual basis for its damages theories and to identify the documents on which it would rely.
Read More >>
Judge Noreika Adopts Magistrate Judge Recommendation to Deny Motion to Dismiss for Personal Jurisdiction
In Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. EU Automation, Inc., No. 21-1162-MN (Aug. 19, 2022), a trademark case, Judge Noreika overruled objections to a magistrate judge report filed by one of the defendants (referred to in the decision as “EU Illinois”). The magistrate judge had recommended that EU Illinois’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be denied.
Read More >>