CAFC addresses discovery issues in United Construction v Tile Tech

The "background" section begins


This case comes to our court following a series of de-
lays, missed deadlines, and other procedural missteps by
Tile Tech that are necessary to describe in full.



Tile Tech's arguments:


Tile Tech raises two principal arguments on appeal, one concerning the entry of default judgment and the other related to the scope of the District Court's permanent injunction. Appellant's Br. 14-28, 29-33. "A decision to sanction a litigant [by ordering default judgment] pursuant to Fed[eral] R[ule of] Civ[il] P[rocedure] 37 is one that is not unique to patent law . . . and we therefore apply regional circuit law to that issue . . . ." ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Drone Techs., Inc. v. Parrot S.A., 838 F.3d 1283, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (considering an appellant's challenge to the imposition of default judgment and stating that "[w]e are guided by regional circuit law when reviewing discovery rulings . . . and the imposition of sanctions" (internal citations omitted)). In this case, we look to Ninth Circuit precedent, and the relevant standard is articulated below. Because the injunction "enjoins the violation of a[] right secured by a patent . . . [it] involves substantive matters unique to patent law and, therefore, is governed by the law of this court." Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d 1446, 1451 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see Signtech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek, Inc., 174 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (applying Federal Circuit law as the standard of review for the scope of an injunction).



Note also


Where one party withholds evidence, repeatedly declines to truthfully
respond to discovery requests or comply with the
District Court’s rules, and fails to properly designate witnesses
and exhibits during discovery, such conduct prejudices an
opposing party’s ability to reach a rightful disposition of
the case



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1392.Opinion.12-14-2016.1.PDF

Also: 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22248