A recent order from the district court’s new magistrate, Magistrate Judge Stark, sheds some light on his case scheduling process. Power Integrations, Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 07-633-JJF-LPS, Memo. Order (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2008). Of particular note, Magistrate Stark is following the same discovery dispute procedure as Judge Jordan previously used, and Magistrate Thynge continues to use. When the parties have a dispute, they should contact chambers to arrange for a teleconference. Forty-eight hours prior to the teleconference the party seeking relief files a 3 page letter setting forth the issues and its position and then 24 hours later, the opposing party files its 3 page opposition letter. (Note: a copy of any sealed letter or exhibit must be provided to the Court within 1 hour after e-filing.) After the teleconference the judge will decide whether to order further briefing.
The Memorandum Order also clarifies Magistrate Stark’s position on the “3-day rule” regarding service. The Order states that “Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(e) provides for three extra days for responding to documents electronically filed, whether or not e-mailed and/or hand-delievered as well.”
Finally, Magistrate Stark’s tutorial process is different than the other sitting judges in this district. Pursuant to this Order, each party files under seal a thirty minute CD or video of their tutorial with no discussion or argument about claim construction. Each party within 10 days can then submit a five page written response commenting on the opposing party’s tutorial.
We will continue to watch to see if the schedule in this case translates into a future form Rule 16 schedule for his patent docket.
For a copy of the opinion: Power Integrations Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor Corp.