Free
Message: Royce Micro-Cap Fund... $1.1 Billion in Net Assets
RULE 26 (f)

(f) Meeting of Parties; Planning for Discovery.

Except in actions exempted by local rule or when otherwise ordered, the parties shall, as soon as practicable and in any event at least 14 days beforescheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b) , meet to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by subdivision (a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan. The plan shall indicate the parties' views and proposals concerning:

(1) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under subdivision (a) or local rule, including a statement as to when disclosures under subdivision (a)(1) were made or will be made;

(2) the subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be

limited to or focused upon particular issues;

(3) what changes should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be

imposed; and

(4) any other orders that should be entered by the court under subdivision (c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c) .

The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging and being present or

represented at the meeting, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 10 days after the meeting a written report outlining the plan.

Advantages of Early Discovery Claim Construction Combined with Immediate Appeals to the CAFC on an Interlocutory Basis.

¶ 51Early discovery claim construction coupled with claim construction orders that are immediately appealable to the CAFC on an interlocutory basis achieves numerous advantages. First, setting the timing of claim construction enhances uniformity by solidifying the claim construction schedule in all instances of patent litigation. Moreover, uniformity is enhanced because all district courts operate under the same claim construction schedule. Such scheduling uniformity also discourages forum shopping. Professor Kimberly Moore concluded that speed of adjudication is one of many factors that results in forum shopping, particularly by patent holders filing infringement suits.103 Additionally, Parsons et. al noted that the early scheduling conferences in the District of Delaware contribute to that district's status as a patent litigation center.104 Similar evidence can be logically inferred in the Northern District of California, where early scheduling is the norm.

¶ 52Second, early discovery claim construction combined with interlocutory appeals to the CAFC fosters greater certainty at a significantly earlier stage in the litigation. Once claim construction is settled by the CAFC, the case is remanded to the district court to continue formal discovery, expert reports, summary judgment, etc. Because claim construction is settled before discovery is concluded, the parties are better able to solidify their strategic position at an early stage.

¶ 53Third, the proposed solution fosters judicial efficiency in several ways. Early solidification of claim construction encourages the parties to use alternate dispute resolution at an early point in the dispute which can induce both sides to settle at an early stage. Also, early claim construction procedures encourage greater due diligence before filing suit which may result in more pre-filing settlements while reducing the number of patent infringement suits filed.

¶ 54 Although early discovery claim construction may significantly increase the cost of early stage patent litigation, the onset and growth of contingency patent litigation helps to ensure that all parties are given a chance. Furthermore, Malek indicates that early discovery claim construction is the only way "to open the door to the patent litigation process" to small, individual inventors who lack wealthy investors.105 Also, this uniform solution creates additional efficiency since both the parties and the court need not spend time and effort negotiating scheduling of claim construction. In addition, the resultant uniformity in scheduling of claim construction significantly reduces the evils of forum shopping. Finally, early settlement of claim construction reduces future appeals.

¶ 55Fourth, the proposed solution maximizes the accuracy of patent claim construction. In the very rare instances that discovery proves that an alternate claim construction should have been made, the CAFC can revisit the issue once the judgment of the district court is certified. Because the CAFC is reviewing its earlier determination to see if it was clearly erroneous, there is little threat to judicial economy.

¶ 56Though the proposed solution will significantly raise the burden placed upon the CAFC, a balancing test reveals that early discovery claim construction decisions which are immediately appealable to the CAFC are comparatively more economical than the present system. Critics of the current system of patent litigation contend that the current model is too expensive, too wasteful, and results in too much uncertainty.106 At present, a party seeking to appeal its claim construction order must either stipulate to infringement, or waste significant financial resources of both the judiciary and the parties on a trial which "rolls the dice." Presumably, the claim construction in these cases is generally appealed anyway.107 Interlocutory appeals avoid this troublesome situation. The balance also favors the proposed solution since the increased settlement rate will lighten the load of the district courts, resulting in enhanced efficiency. Thus, early discovery claim construction that allows for interlocutory appeals to the CAFC yields numerous advantages.

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply