Article January 5, 2022
Judge Lord Grants Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued at Close of Fact Discovery
- Person title
On February 23, 2016, in the matter of Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-963, ALJ Dee Lord issued an order granting Complainants' motion to quash respondent Fitbit's subpoena ad testificandum, citing lack of diligence on the part of respondent in pursing discovery as part of the basis for granting the motion.
The subpoena at issue in the order was issued on January 28, 2016, one day prior to the close of fact discovery (January 29, 2016), and served after the discovery close on February 1, 2016. In her order, ALJ Lord noted that her Ground Rule 4.4.5 requires discovery requests to be initiated in sufficient time so that responses are due prior to the discovery cutoff and that a party must obtain approval in advance to serve discovery requests that would require responses after that date. According to the order, Fitbit failed to seek such approval to serve its subpoena in this case. ALJ Lord went on to state that, in any event, Fitbit "failed to show compelling circumstances for pursuing this discovery outside of the fact discovery period" in that discovery requests seeking related discovery were served in November 2015 and "Fitbit [did] not explain why it waited until the end of discovery to seek a subpoena...when it has been pursing related discovery for several months."
It is well established that deadlines come quickly at the ITC. This recent order underscores the need to aggressively and actively pursue discovery. While true of all discovery, this is particularly true with respect to third party discovery due to the delay imposed by the need to apply for a subpoena, wait for its issuance, and effect service.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Article December 13, 2021
Fish Principals Author Article "Powering up" for Intellectual Property Magazine
Article September 1, 2021
White Paper | Strategic IP Considerations of Batteries and Energy Storage Solutions
Blog November 27, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q3 2023
Blog November 15, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog November 9, 2023
Legal Alert: FTC Challenges More Than 100 Patents as Improperly Listed in Orange Book
Blog November 3, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Allergan Patents Invalid for Lack of Written Description and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Labs
Blog October 31, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog October 30, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Non-Orange Book-Listed Patents Subject to the Same Pleading Standard as Listed Patents in ANDA Infringement Suit
Blog October 11, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2023
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.
Blog September 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: August 2023
Blog August 14, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q2 2023