New Local Patent Rules May Speed Up Patent Litigation In Massachusetts

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

Change appears to be here, however, as effective June 1, 2018, the District of Massachusetts amended its Local Rule 16.6 to provide for mandatory patent rules and scheduling. The prior local rules suggested a schedule for patent proceedings that parties could use in their scheduling orders, but left it up to the parties to agree to certain deadlines in the proposed order. The amended rules, however, require that the assigned judge set a trial date that is within 2 years of the initial scheduling conference (a court hearing that usually takes place within months of the complaint filing), and set certain other patent-specific deadlines on dates calculated from the initial scheduling conference date.

The new Massachusetts patent rules appear to be relatively plaintiff-friendly. While they require that the patent plaintiff provide its infringement contentions within 3 weeks after the initial scheduling conference, they also mandate that the patent defendant provide not only its patent invalidity contentions, but also its non-infringement contentions and a production of its technical documents and source code within a short 9 weeks after the initial scheduling conference. And these deadlines appear to be strict; parties may not amend these initial patent disclosures in the case without a court order and a showing of good cause. We provide some of the highlights of the new patent rules below.

Claim Construction Hearing and Trial Scheduling

The new rules require that trial be scheduled to be held within 2 years of the initial scheduling conference. This requirement is a significant change in a district that was notorious for much longer times to trial.

Although there is no set deadline by which the Court must make its claim construction ruling, under the rules the claim construction hearing must be held within 9 months of the initial scheduling conference. L.R. 16.6(c)(2). The exchange of the parties’ lists of claim terms for claim construction must be made no later than 12 weeks after the initial scheduling conference. L.R. 16.6(e)(1)(A).

Importantly, the parties may jointly present no more than 10 claim terms for construction, absent a showing of good cause. L.R. 16.6(e)(1)(C). Factors supporting good cause include the complexity of the patented technology, the number of asserted claims and patents, the lack of relation among the asserted patents, the number and complexity of invalidity defenses, and the number and diversity of accused products or methods.

Amendments to Preliminary Patent-Related Disclosures

Preliminary patent-related disclosures by the patentee – including infringement claim charts – must be made no later than 3 weeks after the initial scheduling conference. L.R. 16.6(d)(1). In turn, the accused infringer’s preliminary patent-related disclosures – including a production of documents and/or source code describing the accused products, non-infringement claim charts and invalidity contentions – must be made no later than 9 weeks after the initial scheduling conference. L.R. 16.6(d)(4).

These preliminary patent-related disclosures may be amended and supplemented only by leave of court upon a timely showing of good cause. L.R. 16.6(d)(5). Furthermore, according to the rules, “[t]he duty to supplement discovery responses does not excuse the need to obtain leave of court to amend disclosures.”

Fact and Expert Discovery

The close of fact discovery is set within 15 months of the initial scheduling conference, or 60 days after the entry of the Court’s ruling on claim construction, whichever is later. L.R. 16.6(c)(4). The close of expert discovery is set within 18 months of the initial scheduling conference, or 90 days after the close of fact discovery, whichever is later. L.R. 16.6(c)(5).

The amended L.R. 16.6(d)(6) now provides for a default protective order for “documents and information that either party believe are confidential,” including the preliminary patent-related disclosures, until a case-specific protective order is entered. Relatedly, L.R. 16.6(d)(7) permits any party to challenge the confidentiality designation of the required patent-related disclosures.

The following chart sets forth the schedule of events according to the amended L.R. 16.6 for patent proceedings:

  Event Deadline
1. Patentee’s preliminary patent-related disclosures

·       infringement claim charts
·       patent prosecution history
·       ownership evidence
·       real parties in interest documentation

3 weeks after initial scheduling conference (“ISC”)
2. Meet and confer concerning patentee’s preliminary patent-related disclosures 6 weeks after ISC
3. Accused infringer’s preliminary patent-related disclosures

·       technical documents
·       product samples
·       source code
·       non-infringement claim charts
·       invalidity claim charts on anticipation and obviousness, and disclosure of other grounds of invalidity, including production of evidence supporting invalidity defenses
·       real parties in interest documentation

9 weeks after ISC
4. Exchange of claim terms and proposed constructions 12 weeks after ISC
5. Meet and confer on exchanged claim terms 13 weeks after ISC
6. Joint statement of number of claims and terms to be construed, and joint claim construction chart 14 weeks after ISC
7. Opening claim construction briefs (parties file simultaneous briefs) 17 weeks after ISC
8. Claim construction expert depositions 20 weeks after ISC
9. Responsive claim construction briefs 23 weeks after ISC
10. Claim construction hearing 9 months after ISC
11. Disclosure of written opinion or oral advice of counsel 4 weeks after entry of the Court’s claim construction ruling
12. Fact discovery cut-off 15 months after ISC, or 60 days after entry of the Court’s claim construction ruling, whichever is later
13. Expert discovery cut-off 18 months after ISC, or 90 days after close of fact discovery, whichever is later
14. Trial 24 months after ISC

The new patent rules set forth a more predictable schedule that is expected to make patent plaintiffs more comfortable in Massachusetts. Moreover, requiring defendants to produce their invalidity contentions within months of the initial scheduling conference, and without the ability to amend such contentions absent a showing of good cause, places the burden on defendants to very quickly get up to speed on the case. Time will tell as we see how the new rules are implemented by the Court, but based on the face of the rules, it appears that Massachusetts is poised to become a faster and more plaintiff-friendly venue for patent litigation. A copy of the amended Local Rule 16.6 is here.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Proskauer - New England IP Blog | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

Proskauer - New England IP Blog on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.