Key Discovery Points: Do Your Best to Avoid Discovery Shenanigans!
eDiscovery Case Law Podcast: How Failing to Meet and Confer Effectively Can Lead to Sanctions
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
United States Magistrate Judge Figueredo recently denied Plaintiff EscapeX IP, LLC’s (“EscapeX”) efforts to seal its objections to billing records Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) had originally filed under seal in connection...more
The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued an opinion holding that when a district court has ordered discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, but has not yet conclusively defined the scope of that discovery, the...more
On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision resolving the ongoing patent litigation between AliveCor and Apple concerning methods of cardiac monitoring purportedly employed in certain of Apple’s Watches. The...more
The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest...more
The Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up for October 2023 covers three decisions addressing the scope of the work-product and attorney-client privileges, limits on the use of a defendant’s use of its own patents during...more
In a 2-1 opinion,1 the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin finding Defendant Leader Accessories LLC (“Leader”) and its attorney, Mr....more
On May 20, 2022, Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on several discovery disputes inSure Fit Home Prods., LLC v. Maytex Mills Inc. In a case involving shower curtains, Plaintiff Sure Fit Home Prods. moved...more
This post continues our summary of substantive orders in patent litigation in the District of Minnesota. This summary includes discovery relevant to willfulness findings, stays under the customer suit exception, and...more
While the Federal Circuit has patent law as its principal focus, as a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, questions come before the Court on more mundane, procedural matters (which, sometimes being dispositive, does not reduce...more
A recent Memorandum Order from the District of Delaware edified the protections courts tend to give discovery concerning litigation funding. Because Defendant AT&T failed to carry its burden of demonstrating the specific...more
As we previously reported, Amgen sued Pfizer and its affiliate Hospira in July 2018 based on Hospira’s submission of an aBLA for a biosimilar of NEULASTA (filgrastim). That same month, Pfizer obtained FDA-approval and, in...more
This week, in the Immunex v. Samsung Bioepis BPCIA litigation regarding ETICOVO (etanercept-ykro), Samsung Bioepis’s biosimilar of ENBREL, the New Jersey district court entered a Consent Injunction Order that prohibits...more
A recent order from International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge Elliott provides helpful guidance regarding a common ITC discovery dispute: whether a party may withhold from discovery as work product pre-suit test...more
In 3G Licensing, S.A. et al v. HTC Corporation, the Honorable Christopher J. Burke of the District of Delaware denied Defendants’ motion for partial stay pending resolution of inter partes review (IPR) because of the lack of...more
In Limestone Memory Systems LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al., the Discovery Master ruled that, under 9th Circuit law, pre-suit, patent analysis documents qualified for immunity from discovery under the work product...more
The many discovery disputes between AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim (“BI”) over BI’s biosimilar of HUMIRA® (adalimumab) in the Delaware District Court are providing insight on the bounds of discovery in Biologics Price...more
The PTAB has discretion to permit “routine discovery” under 37 C.F.R. §42.51(b)(1)(iii) when that discovery “is narrowly directed to specific information known to the responding party to be inconsistent with a position...more
We previously reported on discovery disputes in the adalimumab litigation between AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) pending before the District of Delaware. Earlier this month, Judge Lloret issued an order on additional...more
We have recently reported on multiple discovery rulings in the ongoing AbbVie v. Boehringer Ingelheim litigation concerning Boehringer Ingelheims’s (“BI’s”) aBLA for Cyltezo™ (adalimumab-adbm), a biosimilar version of...more
In the long-standing patent dispute between Sophos and RPost, Judge Casper recently issued the oft-sought but rarely received award of attorneys’ fees, after finding that the case was “exceptional.” The suit began in 2013,...more
Judge Stearns recently clarified the scope of an almost five-year-old multi-district patent dispute in the District of Massachusetts. Since early 2013, Judge Stearns has presided over NeuroGrafix’ allegations of patent...more
In a recent multi-district case involving patent infringement allegations relating to MRI imaging, Judge Stearns granted motions for protective orders directed to untimely-served subpoenas on third party customers. The case...more
Today, the Federal Circuit dismissed Amgen’s appeal from and mandamus petition regarding the U.S. District Court for the Delaware’s order denying Amgen’s motion to compel discovery for lack of jurisdiction under the...more
As we previously reported in the dispute brought by Janssen against Hospira and Celltrion regarding infliximab, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the 2015 and 2016 consolidated actions for lack of standing. In those...more