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: Prior Art Requires Written Support for Jepson Claim
- The Return of a Mandate on Patent Infringement Precludes Further Consideration of Issues Actually Decided
- CAFC Affirms TTAB Ruling that FIREBALL is Not Generic but Competitor’s Mark Won’t Confuse
- John Squires Becomes Official Nominee to Head USPTO
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, March 7: Lashify Wins ITC Appeal on Economic Prong Analysis; CAFC Says Apple Did Not Violate Discovery Obligations at PTAB; and ParkerVision Files Reply Brief on Rule 36 Appeal at SCOTUS