Saturday, September 16, 2017

US Court of Claims on "epiphany"

The suggestion that defendant's epiphany occurred only after "obtaining" discovery is less than ingenuous. The government was not obtaining discovery, it was responding to plaintiff's requests with its own information. The assertion that the government's investigation of its own records in response to plaintiff's interrogatory constitutes due diligence makes no sense; it certainly does not constitute good cause, particularly when the court has made substantive rulings which, if revisited, would penalize plaintiff, cf. RCFC 24(b)(3), or if not revisited, could potentially prejudice the third party.

from MORPHOTRUST USA, LLC et al., Plaintiffs, v. Patent infringement ice to THE UNITED STATES, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1112


Post a Comment

<< Home