In Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, C.A. No. 10-1045 (RBK-JS) (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2012), defendant asked the court to compel plaintiff to supplement its responses to defendant’s requests for admission. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s responses were inappropriate because plaintiff “substituted its own definitions for those [defendant] supplied.” Id. Plaintiff responded that it simply qualified its responses and that the definitions were “misleading and vague[.]” Id. The requests at issue address monooxygenase enzymes and dioxygenase enzymes. Id. The court held that plaintiff did not have to further respond to defendant’s requests until after the Court issues its claim construction ruling because the court’s construction of those terms are, “[i]f not the most important issue in the case, . . . undoubtedly a central issue in the litigation.” Id. at 2.
Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, C.A. No. 10-1045 (RBK-JS) (D. Del. Mar. 1, 2012)
Delaware IP Law Blog 