Heightened mandatory initial disclosures in patent litigation may affect a client’s decision to pursue litigation in a forum, especially if there is a risk (real or perceived) of having to disclose sensitive company information from the outset of litigation. In the District of Delaware, there has been much attention on recent requirements for transparency regarding litigation funding and company and/or patent ownership issued by Chief Judge Colm Connolly. The Chief Judge’s fervent enforcement of those requirements has prompted a writ of mandamus and potential review by the Federal Circuit. Although the propriety of the third-party litigation funding order may be reviewed by the Federal Circuit, best practices for complying with both the third-party litigation funding and Rule 7.1 Standing Orders will be discussed, along with potential impact of those orders on patent litigation in the long term, and considerations of whether certain information could be sealed.
Recent Posts
- CAFC Gives Centripetal Another Shot at PTAB in Case Tied to APJ’s Alleged Bias
- Undermining Innovation: The Consequences of Closing the Rocky Mountain Regional USPTO Office
- Does the 2025 Version of PERA Indirectly Sanction Judicially Created, Non-Statutory ODP?
- Squires Takes Over All IPR Institution Decisions in Memo to PTAB Judges
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, October 17: CAFC Finds Prosecution Disclaimer in Examiner Acceptance of Patentee’s Scope; Japan Urges Opt-In Copyright Model for Sora 2; and Seventh Circuit Clarifies Evidence Required for Sound Recording Copyright Claims
