Dale LeFebvre

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
08/26/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the briefing regarding the parties' pending discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and having already resolved the disputes raised by Plaintiff, (see D.I. 98), hereby ORDERS that it will resolve the remaining disputes Defendant brings on the papers and that today's videoconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mlc) (Entered: 08/26/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the briefing regarding the parties' pending discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and having already resolved the disputes raised by Plaintiff, (see D.I. 98), hereby ORDERS that it will resolve the remaining disputes Defendant brings on the papers and that today's videoconference is hereby CANCELED. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mlc) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
08/26/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of 1) Mr. Lefebvre's Disclosure of Responsive Claim Constructions; and 2) Plaintiff Dale Lefebvre's First Supplemental Response and Objections to Defendant Extrabux, Inc.'s Interrogatory No. 6 filed by Dale LeFebvre.(Keith, Colin) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
08/26/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute Motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and the briefing related to the disputes raised by Defendant ("Defendant's disputes"), (D.I. 63 ; D.I. 66 ; D.I. 70 ), hereby ORDERS as follows regarding Defendant's disputes: (1) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 1, in which it requests that Plaintiff be required to respond to Defendant's Interrogatory ("ROG") No. 6 (wherein Defendant requests that Plaintiff identify, inter alia, the "construction of each claim limitation [Plaintiff] applied" in preparing infringement contentions (such as those used in a pre-suit notice letter, in the Complaint and in contentions Plaintiff submitted in February 2024), (D.I. 63, ex. A at 10), the request is DENIED. The Court agrees with Defendant that such claim construction positions can be relevant to the claims and defenses in the case. And it is not sure that it agrees with Plaintiff that such a request can never be appropriate simply because the Scheduling Order also includes a process for the exchange of disputed claim terms, leading to Markman briefing. (D.I. 66 at 1-2) There might be some scenarios where an early, targeted ROG asking for a party's claim construction position on a particular term or terms, well in advance of the Markman process, could make sense from a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 perspective. For now, the Court will deny the request simply because the ROG, as written, is certainly unduly overbroad and burdensome. It literally asks for Plaintiff's position on the meaning of every single word in every single claim limitation in every single claim at issue in the prior contentions (along with supporting intrinsic evidence). Since there is no way that all such claim term "constructions" could possibly be the subject of real, live disputes in this case relating to infringement or validity, the Court is not going to make Plaintiff respond to the ROG as written. If there is some more targeted claim construction position (e.g., as to one or two particular claim terms) that Plaintiff took in the past that Defendant thinks is particularly important, then Defendant can discuss narrowing the focus of the ROG with Plaintiff, and if Plaintiff does not agree to respond to that narrowed focus, Defendant can take the issue up with the Court in the future.; (2) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 2, in which it requests that Plaintiff be required to substantively respond to Defendant's ROG No. 8 (which asks Plaintiff to provide its view as to who is a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") as it relates to this action, along with other POSITA-related information), (D.I. 63, ex. A at 12), the request is GRANTED. The information is relevant to this case, and not just to the claim construction process (as Plaintiff seems to suggest), (D.I. 66 at 2), but to lots of potential liability issues, (D.I. 70 at 1). This ROG should have been answered long ago. Plaintiff will further supplement its response to the ROG by no later than 10 days from today's date, absent further order of the Court to the contrary.; and (3) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 3, in which it seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to search for and produce documents responsive to various requests for production ("RFPs") without Plaintiff imposing "improper unilateral search restrictions[,]" (D.I. 63 at 2-3), the Court will accept Plaintiffs clear assertion that even were it to have removed its objections to the RFPs, any further responsive documents "do not exist[,]" (D.I. 66 at 2-3). Thus, the request is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mpb) (Entered: 08/26/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute Motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and the briefing related to the disputes raised by Defendant ("Defendant's disputes"), (D.I. 63 ; D.I. 66 ; D.I. 70 ), hereby ORDERS as follows regarding Defendant's disputes: (1) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 1, in which it requests that Plaintiff be required to respond to Defendant's Interrogatory ("ROG") No. 6 (wherein Defendant requests that Plaintiff identify, inter alia, the "construction of each claim limitation [Plaintiff] applied" in preparing infringement contentions (such as those used in a pre-suit notice letter, in the Complaint and in contentions Plaintiff submitted in February 2024), (D.I. 63, ex. A at 10), the request is DENIED. The Court agrees with Defendant that such claim construction positions can be relevant to the claims and defenses in the case. And it is not sure that it agrees with Plaintiff that such a request can never be appropriate simply because the Scheduling Order also includes a process for the exchange of disputed claim terms, leading to Markman briefing. (D.I. 66 at 1-2) There might be some scenarios where an early, targeted ROG asking for a party's claim construction position on a particular term or terms, well in advance of the Markman process, could make sense from a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 perspective. For now, the Court will deny the request simply because the ROG, as written, is certainly unduly overbroad and burdensome. It literally asks for Plaintiff's position on the meaning of every single word in every single claim limitation in every single claim at issue in the prior contentions (along with supporting intrinsic evidence). Since there is no way that all such claim term "constructions" could possibly be the subject of real, live disputes in this case relating to infringement or validity, the Court is not going to make Plaintiff respond to the ROG as written. If there is some more targeted claim construction position (e.g., as to one or two particular claim terms) that Plaintiff took in the past that Defendant thinks is particularly important, then Defendant can discuss narrowing the focus of the ROG with Plaintiff, and if Plaintiff does not agree to respond to that narrowed focus, Defendant can take the issue up with the Court in the future.; (2) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 2, in which it requests that Plaintiff be required to substantively respond to Defendant's ROG No. 8 (which asks Plaintiff to provide its view as to who is a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") as it relates to this action, along with other POSITA-related information), (D.I. 63, ex. A at 12), the request is GRANTED. The information is relevant to this case, and not just to the claim construction process (as Plaintiff seems to suggest), (D.I. 66 at 2), but to lots of potential liability issues, (D.I. 70 at 1). This ROG should have been answered long ago. Plaintiff will further supplement its response to the ROG by no later than 10 days from today's date, absent further order of the Court to the contrary.; and (3) With regard to Defendant's Issue No. 3, in which it seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to search for and produce documents responsive to various requests for production ("RFPs") without Plaintiff imposing "improper unilateral search restrictions[,]" (D.I. 63 at 2-3), the Court will accept Plaintiffs clear assertion that even were it to have removed its objections to the RFPs, any further responsive documents "do not exist[,]" (D.I. 66 at 2-3). Thus, the request is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/26/2024. (mpb) (Entered: 08/26/2024)
08/23/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and the briefing related to the disputes raised by Plaintiff ("Plaintiff's disputes"), (D.I. 62 ; D.I. 67 ; D.I. 69 ), hereby ORDERS as follows regarding Plaintiff's disputes: (1) With regard to Plaintiff's first dispute, (D.I. 62 at 1-2), it is DENIED as MOOT. Here, Plaintiff had requested production of all underlying data that supported the tables that Defendant had included in its response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories ("ROGs") Nos. 1-2. (Id.) In its answering brief, Defendant explained that in response to this request, just prior to submission of Plaintiffs opening brief, it had provided Plaintiff with a spreadsheet file that included the data sought. (D.I. 67 at 2) In his reply brief, Plaintiff did not dispute that it had received the data at issue and said only that he would advise the Court in the future if the issue was not moot (as Defendant had contended it now was). (D.I. 69 at 2) Plaintiff has provided no further communication to the Court in this regard, and the Court has no basis to conclude anything other than the issue is moot (as Defendant asserted).; (2) With regard to Plaintiffs second dispute, (D.I. 62 at 2), the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Plaintiffs request, in that Defendant shall provide a supplemental response to Plaintiffs ROG No. 10 that (as Plaintiff requested in its opening brief) answers the ROGs question (i.e., about any changes in operation made to Defendant's website since Defendant's first knowledge of Plaintiffs patents) to the extent that those changes were made "in response to [Plaintiffs notice] letters or this lawsuit." (Id.; D.I. 67 at 2) Defendant shall provide this supplemental response no later than 10 days from today's date, absent further Court order to the contrary. This type of response will provide the core information that Plaintiff is seeking regarding his willfulness allegations, and it should also assuage Defendant's concerns (which Plaintiff did not really address head-on in his reply brief) that the ROG, as written, requires information about many other irrelevant changes that may have been made to the website in this timeframe. (D.I. 67 at 3); and (3) With regard to Plaintiffs third dispute, (D.I. 62 at 3), the Court DENIES the request as MOOT, in light of Plaintiff having withdrawn the request. (D.I. 69 at 2) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/23/2024. (rlr) (Entered: 08/23/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute motion ("Motion"), (D.I. 55 ), and the briefing related to the disputes raised by Plaintiff ("Plaintiff's disputes"), (D.I. 62 ; D.I. 67 ; D.I. 69 ), hereby ORDERS as follows regarding Plaintiff's disputes: (1) With regard to Plaintiff's first dispute, (D.I. 62 at 1-2), it is DENIED as MOOT. Here, Plaintiff had requested production of all underlying data that supported the tables that Defendant had included in its response to Plaintiff's Interrogatories ("ROGs") Nos. 1-2. (Id.) In its answering brief, Defendant explained that in response to this request, just prior to submission of Plaintiffs opening brief, it had provided Plaintiff with a spreadsheet file that included the data sought. (D.I. 67 at 2) In his reply brief, Plaintiff did not dispute that it had received the data at issue and said only that he would advise the Court in the future if the issue was not moot (as Defendant had contended it now was). (D.I. 69 at 2) Plaintiff has provided no further communication to the Court in this regard, and the Court has no basis to conclude anything other than the issue is moot (as Defendant asserted).; (2) With regard to Plaintiffs second dispute, (D.I. 62 at 2), the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Plaintiffs request, in that Defendant shall provide a supplemental response to Plaintiffs ROG No. 10 that (as Plaintiff requested in its opening brief) answers the ROGs question (i.e., about any changes in operation made to Defendant's website since Defendant's first knowledge of Plaintiffs patents) to the extent that those changes were made "in response to [Plaintiffs notice] letters or this lawsuit." (Id.; D.I. 67 at 2) Defendant shall provide this supplemental response no later than 10 days from today's date, absent further Court order to the contrary. This type of response will provide the core information that Plaintiff is seeking regarding his willfulness allegations, and it should also assuage Defendant's concerns (which Plaintiff did not really address head-on in his reply brief) that the ROG, as written, requires information about many other irrelevant changes that may have been made to the website in this timeframe. (D.I. 67 at 3); and (3) With regard to Plaintiffs third dispute, (D.I. 62 at 3), the Court DENIES the request as MOOT, in light of Plaintiff having withdrawn the request. (D.I. 69 at 2) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/23/2024. (rlr) (Entered: 08/23/2024)
08/23/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Non-Party Delvin Kelly's Objections and Response to Defendant Extrabux, Inc.'s Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition filed by Dale LeFebvre.(Keith, Colin) (Entered: 08/23/2024)
08/19/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of 92 Letter by Dale LeFebvre. (Keith, Colin) (Entered: 08/19/2024)
08/16/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of 91 Letter, by Extrabux, Inc.. (Cucuzzella, Lucinda) (Entered: 08/16/2024)
08/14/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that a videoconference to hear argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint ("Motion"), (D.I. 84 ), is set for October 7, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Christopher J. Burke via the Microsoft Teams platform. By no later than September 27, 2024, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Grimes, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the hearing. The Court may choose to resolve the Motion prior to the videoconference and will, in that event, cancel the videoconference (however, if any party advises the Court in advance that a newer attorney will argue the dispute, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf, then the Court will go forward with the conference). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/14/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/14/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that a videoconference to hear argument on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint ("Motion"), (D.I. 84 ), is set for October 7, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Christopher J. Burke via the Microsoft Teams platform. By no later than September 27, 2024, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Grimes, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the hearing. The Court may choose to resolve the Motion prior to the videoconference and will, in that event, cancel the videoconference (however, if any party advises the Court in advance that a newer attorney will argue the dispute, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf, then the Court will go forward with the conference). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/14/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/14/2024)
08/12/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Colin A. Keith regarding Request for Teleconference - re 84 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (Keith, Colin) (Entered: 08/12/2024)
08/12/24	Lefebvre v. Extrabux Inc 1:23-CV-00167 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Colin A. Keith regarding Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint - re 84 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. (Keith, Colin) (Entered: 08/12/2024)