Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark | District of Delaware | United States District Court
Chief Judge Stark recently announced his new procedures and form after good faith efforts – including verbal communication among Delaware and one Lead Counsel per party, participated in a verbal meet-and-confer (in. Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware recently a Case Management Order requiring the parties to meet and confer and. Judge Leonard Stark recently granted a patent infringement it would have been far preferable [for the parties] to have met and conferred.
A form Procedures Order provides certain procedures for scheduling, discovery disputes, and motions to amend and strike. For example, instead of calling chambers to request a discovery dispute teleconference, parties will now be required to submit a joint letter.
District of Delaware’s Judge Stark issues new patent case procedures - Lexology
Prior to filing the joint letter, local and lead counsel for the parties must attempt to resolve the dispute through verbal communication. Additionally, discovery motions, motions to amend, or motions to strike must be submitted by letter briefs of up to three pages rather than full briefs and will be briefed on a condensed schedule.
Most notable, however, are the revised case management procedures that will likely affect case preparation and strategy the most. Judge Stark will no longer wait until all defendants have responded to the complaint to schedule a conference.
Another Delaware Judge Outlines New Patent Case Practices - Law
The Checklist requires lead and local counsel for each party to discuss, either by phone or in person, an extensive list of issues related to discovery, claim construction, related cases, remedies, amendments, motions, summary judgment, and scheduling. Thus, both plaintiffs and defendants must be prepared to address these types of issues at the very beginning of the case.
After meeting and conferring about the items on the Checklist, the parties must jointly file the Checklist and their proposed scheduling order within 30 days of the Case Management Order.
At the conference, each party must be represented by lead and local counsel and counsel should be prepared to discuss each matter on the checklist. This case management and scheduling process will not generally be deferred due to the pendency of motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay. In addition to procedures for scheduling, motions, and case management, Judge Stark provided new procedures and limits for summary judgment and Daubert briefing, pretrial orders, pretrial conferences, trial, and post-trial motions.
Judge Stark also issued a revised form scheduling order and pretrial order. He stated that he will be highly receptive to proposals that narrow the case.
Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark
He also set a goal of issuing all Markman rulings within 60 days after a Markman hearing. With these revised procedures, practitioners should adjust their preparation and litigation strategy for patent cases assigned to Judge Stark. Moreover, there may be additional changes to come from other District of Delaware judges, given the fact that both Judge Stark and Judge Sue L.
Robinson issued new patent procedures this year. Delaware currently has 1, patent cases, or patent cases per judge, while the nationwide average is 10 patent cases per judge.
IP Litigation Current
In alone, Judge Stark projects plaintiffs will file about 1, patent cases in Delaware. During more than 15 hours of meetings, they met with more than attorneys from more than 25 law firms and in-house legal departments across the country.
They heard that Delaware was doing a good job handling its docket of patent cases but could improve in certain specific areas. First, it was recommended that the judges devote more resources earlier in their cases, which could help identify weaker cases and end them early.
- Another Delaware Judge Outlines New Patent Case Practices
- Judge Stark Grants Sanctions for Party’s Failure to Abide by Scheduling Order
- District of Delaware’s Judge Stark issues new patent case procedures
Second, it was important to set a schedule including a trial date at the beginning of the case and keep it. And third, they heard about the importance of issuing decisions quickly, even if those decisions are not long, written opinions. In response to what Judge Robinson heard during these meetings, she issued a new, much-discussed model scheduling order earlier this year.
She made many changes to her standard practices, including earlier Markman claim construction hearings and a goal of issuing claim construction opinions within 30 days of the hearingsno longer presumptively bifurcating liability from damages, and enacting an 8 p. Eastern time filing deadline for filings due on a certain day sorry West Coast practitioners.
He has not yet issued a new form scheduling order, but he expects to this summer. Judge Stark outlined the following expected changes: He will hold early case management conferences in chambers.
Before these conferences, the parties will be required to meet, discuss items on a checklist prepared by the court, and certify that this discussion has taken place. The checklist items will be discussed at the case management conference.Watch Live: Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford Testify At Senate Hearing - NBC News
Case management conferences will be set after any defendant files a motion or an answer. Judge Stark will no longer wait until all defendants have responded to the complaint to set a scheduling conference. This implies that a motion to dismiss will not delay the start of a patent case.
Each case will be treated individually for purposes of setting scheduling conferences. Related cases involving the same patent s will not necessarily proceed on the same track. He will presumptively set a trial date in the initial case scheduling order.
Motions to transfer, stay, or dismiss will be referred to a magistrate judge. He eventually may refer case management conferences and scheduling to a magistrate judge as well. He will be less resistant to early Markman hearings, especially where construction of a small number of terms could be case dispositive.