直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

Media Mention

Patent Bar Gives Proposed Local Rule Positive Reviews

February 8, 2018

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

The District of Massachusetts recently released proposed rule changes to the local patent rules, which would feature a two-year timeline for the scheduling of trials over the infringement, validity, or enforceability of patents. The changes are believed to make the District of Massachusetts a more attractive venue for companies looking for a faster and more efficient resolution. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reached to Finnegan partner Linda Thayer for her thoughts on the proposed changes. 

Linda said, "Companies are concerned with the cost of patent litigation. The longer a case takes to completion, the more it drives up costs." In reference to the proposed two-year timeline to trial, she said, "Plaintiffs want a faster forum because they think it helps drive defendants to settlement, but defendants want a faster forum because they don’t want a lawsuit hanging over their heads for years on end."

Linda noted that some of her tech clients have an issue with the proposed timelines for the mandatory disclosures by defendants. There is concern the rule places a disproportionate burden of responsibility on defendants, particularly given the expectation that there will be frequent disputes as to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s disclosures. She noted that under the proposed rules, defendants do not have the same luxury that plaintiffs have to take years to prepare for making mandatory disclosures in advance of filing a complaint. "Sometimes defendants are hearing about [the claims against them] for the first time when the complaint is filed, yet defendants are required to give their initial disclosures 42 days after the plaintiff’s disclosures." She suggests more flexibility if a plaintiff needs to supplement its disclosures. She said, "You could toll defendant’s requirement to produce those documents until plaintiff provides sufficient infringement
contention." 

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Related Offices

Boston, MA

Related News

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Recognized Again Among Germany’s Leading Law Firms

October 9, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Summary Determination of No Violation in ITC Vehicle Space Guards Investigation for Drop Stop

October 6, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Wins 2026 Excellence in Construction Award for Washington, DC Office Renovation

September 25, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Named an IP Litigation Powerhouse in BTI Litigation Outlook 2027

September 24, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Receives Top Tier Rankings in World Trademark Review’s Inaugural Copyright 1000 2026

September 23, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Precedential Pro Bono Federal Circuit Victory for AI Whistleblower

September 23, 2026

Commentary

FORUM IP Talks: Dr. Jochen Herr on UPC, FRAND, and Cross-Border Enforcement Topics

September 20, 2026

Commentary

Pepsi's U.S. Trademark Dispute Could Reshape Brand Choices, Lawsuit Strategy, Lawyers Say

September 17, 2026

Commentary

Jellycat’s ‘Dupe’ Dilemma: Can IP Protect a ‘Cute’ Aesthetic?

September 16, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP