Intellectual Property Law

Judge Thynge: Failure to meet and confer adequately under Local Rule 7.1.1. may result in denial of motion to compel

By Karen E. Keller, Andrew A. Lundgren et al.

In this patent infringement action, defendant Philips moved to compel plaintiff Masimo to provide answers to certain interrogatories and document requests. Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 09-80-JJF-MPT (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2010). The court had previously decided to bifurcate and stay discovery related to Philips? antitrust counterclaims. Philips argued that its discovery requests implicated both patent and antitrust issues and, therefore, Masimo should be compelled to respond. Id. at 2-3. Judge Thynge determined that, although the parties met and conferred as required under Local Rule 7.1.1 to discuss Masimo?s objections to Philips' discovery requests, no evidence indicated ?that the parties discussed whether or to what extent Philips? discovery requests related to overlapping patent and antitrust claims, or Masimo?s resultant discovery obligations.? Id. at 3-4. Thus, Judge Thynge denied Philips? motion to compel and ordered the parties to confer on the issues because ?it was unclear to the court whether Philips made the requisite effort to reach an agreement with Masimo . . . .? Id. at 4.

Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 09-80-JJF-MPT (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2010)

Full post as published by Delaware IP Law Blog on March 24, 2010 (boomark / email).