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
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, May 10: Bipartisan Congress Members Call for GAO Study on March-In Proposal; USPTO Warns Trademark Applicants of Data Leak; Supreme Court Rejects Time Limit on Copyright Damages
- The World’s AI Companies Are Killing Trust in the Technology
- SCOTUS Rejects Three-Year Limit on Copyright Damages But Sidesteps Accrual Question
- G+ Communications v. Samsung: The Perils of Being ‘Half-Committed’ to FRAND
- Four Factors to Consider When Deciding Whether to Use Trade Secrets