Published on:

Chief Judge Stark orders supplemental response to contention interrogatory relating to plaintiff’s licenses to assert patents.

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently granted a plaintiff’s request for an order compelling supplemental responses to contention interrogatories relating to the plaintiff’s license agreements with non-party patentees.  Intel Corp. v. Future Link Sys., LLC, C.A. No. 14-377-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 5, 2015).  The Court noted that the defendant spent “the vast majority of its preliminary responsive contentions to complain about Plaintiff’s allegedly deficient document production and discovery responses[,]” but explained that “Defendant ‘may not avoid its obligations under the Court’s schedule by arguing, generically, that Intel has not “met its burden” to prove it is licensed . . . . [Defendant] needs to explain why.’”  Id. at 2 (emphasis in original ).  The Court also rejected the Defendant’s argument that Intel’s license claim “is not suitable for early summary judgment.  On the contrary, Plaintiff has identified specific license provisions, products, and arguments for why it thinks five of the patents-in-suit are licensed. . . . Certain of the issues likely to be presented on summary judgment – for example, the applicability of certain license provisions to the five patents-in-suit – are questions of law (contract interpretation).”  Id. at 3.

Contact Information