Chief Judge Stark denies motion for continuance or bifurcation of trial

Chief Judge Stark recently denied a defendant’s motion for a continuance of trial or bifurcation of certain issues resulting from the defendant’s late production of core technical documents.  Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., C.A. No. 13-723-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2016).  The Court previously sanctioned the defendant for its late production, on the eve of trial, of approximately 170 documents relating to one of its allegedly infringing products.  In that order, the Court explained that it “would be unfairly prejudicial to require Greatbatch to prove at trial infringement of the ‘715 patent by a product for which AVX has only now produced core technical documents.”  In response to the defendant’s subsequent request for a continuance or bifurcation, Chief Judge Stark explained:  “[t]he timing of AVX’s production of core technical documents was such that seemingly the only practical options were to reward AVX by a continuance or bifurcation or diversion of Greatbatch’s pretrial resources to a new issue, or instead to proceed to trial according to the schedule in place and resolve the issue to which the late production related against AVX.  AVX will have an opportunity to ask the Court to reconsider this analysis and conclusion, but it will be at a time that does not cause further disruption to the long-scheduled trial.”

%d bloggers like this: