Money Data Protection Lizenz GmbH & Co

General

Total Cases3

Active Cases1

Patents1

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeNPE

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

L1

B

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
02/14/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] DECLARATION of Julian Manasse-Boetani re [420] Opening Brief in Support by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibits A-N)(Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2025)
02/14/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] OPENING BRIEF in Support re [418] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc..Answering Brief/Response due date per Local Rules is 2/28/2025. (Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2025)
02/14/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] STATEMENT re [418] MOTION for Summary Judgment -- Concise Statement of Facts -- by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc.. (Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2025)
02/14/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	MOTION for Summary Judgment - filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc.. (Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/14/2025)
02/14/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	REQUEST for Oral Argument by CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG re [325] MOTION to Exclude the Opinions of Defendants' Expert Lauren R. Kindler [Daubert Motion] , [331] MOTION to Preclude Certain Opinions of Dr. Eric Cole, [327] MOTION to Exclude the Opinions of Defendants' Expert Kevin Jeffay, PH.D [Daubert Motion] , [334] MOTION to Preclude Certain Opinions of Justin Lewis. (Moshos, Andrew) (Entered: 02/14/2025) REQUEST for Oral Argument by CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG re [325] MOTION to Exclude the Opinions of Defendants' Expert Lauren R. Kindler [Daubert Motion] , [331] MOTION to Preclude Certain Opinions of Dr. Eric Cole, [327] MOTION to Exclude the Opinions of Defendants' Expert Kevin Jeffay, PH.D [Daubert Motion] , [334] MOTION to Preclude Certain Opinions of Justin Lewis. (Moshos, Andrew) (Entered: 02/14/2025)
02/13/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ February 12, 2025 letter, (D.I. [415] ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By no later than February 21, 2025 Plaintiff shall re-file its motion to strike.; (2) By no later than February 21, 2025, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, describing the basis for the requested relief and shall attach the document or material to be stricken.; (3) By no later than February 28, 2025, Defendants shall file a responsive letter with the Court, not to exceed five (5) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the reasons for their opposition.; (4) By no later than March 5, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a reply letter with the Court, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font.; and (5) The Court will plan to resolve the disputes on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute(s), see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute(s) in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/13/2025. (smg) (Entered: 02/13/2025) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ February 12, 2025 letter, (D.I. [415] ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) By no later than February 21, 2025 Plaintiff shall re-file its motion to strike.; (2) By no later than February 21, 2025, Plaintiff shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, describing the basis for the requested relief and shall attach the document or material to be stricken.; (3) By no later than February 28, 2025, Defendants shall file a responsive letter with the Court, not to exceed five (5) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font, outlining the reasons for their opposition.; (4) By no later than March 5, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a reply letter with the Court, not to exceed two (2) single-spaced pages, in no less than 12-point font.; and (5) The Court will plan to resolve the disputes on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the dispute(s), see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the dispute(s) in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/13/2025. (smg) (Entered: 02/13/2025)
02/12/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Andrew M. Moshos, Esq. regarding the Oral Order Concerning Plaintiff's Motion to Strike - re 405 Oral Order . (Moshos, Andrew) Modified on 2/13/2025 (smg). (Entered: 02/12/2025)
02/11/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	NOTICE of Second Amended Subpoena (Richard M. Goldberg) - by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc. (Murray, Travis) (Entered: 02/11/2025)
02/07/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' motion regarding a discovery dispute (“Motion”), (D.I. [234] ), which relates to Plaintiff's request that the Court issue an order sanctioning Defendants for violating the Court's discovery orders, and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [232] ; D.I. [246] ; D.I. [255] ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With the Motion, Plaintiff is asking the Court to order that Defendants be sanctioned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) for failing to obey prior Court orders regarding discovery; Plaintiff resultingly seeks payment of its reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C). (D.I. [232] ) In the Court's view, there is one clear way that Plaintiff has established that Defendants have in fact failed to obey a Court order—i.e., that Defendants failed to abide by the Scheduling Order's requirement that they complete substantial production of documents by February 9, 2024. Plaintiff argues this is so because Defendants produced 93% of their documents in the case after that deadline. (D.I. [45] at para. 9(b); D.I. [232] at 3-4; id., ex. A) This occurred in significant part because on June 3, 2024, Defendants realized that their custodial e-mail productions had been wrongly set to stop at a date in 2018 (the “mistake”), when they should have included custodial e-mail dating well past 2018. (D.I. [232] at 1-2; D.I. [246] at 3); (2) The Motion presents something of a tough call for the Court. That is because not only has there been a violation of a Court order, but additionally, the Court can see how (even though Defendants acted quickly to produce the missing custodial e-mail within three weeks, and thereafter agreed to an eight-week extension of fact discovery) the violation caused some harm to Plaintiff. Due to Defendants' mistake, Plaintiff now had to review a substantial percentage of Defendants' document production on a more compressed timetable than would have otherwise applied (i.e., had the mistake not been made). And this was not the first time in this case where Defendants had made what they described as inadvertent mistakes relating to discovery issues. (D.I. [246] at 4 (metadata); id. at 5 (preservation of Slack messages); cf. D.I. [208] at 79 (the Court noting that Defendants have produced a lot of documents in this case only after Plaintiff raised discovery disputes as to those documents, though also acknowledging that it could not tell if this was “fairly representative of Defendants' production” activity in the entire case)) All of these factors might help support a sanctions order pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2).; (3) However, the Court here will exercise its broad discretion in such matters by DENYING the Motion. It does so because it concludes, under the particular circumstances at play, that it would not be just to do otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); In re Atomica Design Grp., Inc., 591 B.R. 217, 234 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2018) (“Equitable factors, such as the severity of the transgression, may inform whether other circumstances make an award of sanctions unjust or warrant reducing the degree of the sanction.”). It does so for the following reasons: (a) Defendants have submitted a declaration explaining that their mistake regarding the date range issue was truly inadvertent, and the Court credits that declaration. (D.I. [249] at paras. 14-17); (b) In asserting in their opening brief that Defendants had produced 93% of their documents after the substantial completion deadline, Plaintiff failed to inform the Court that part of the reason for this was that the parties had not agreed on ESI search terms until February 5, 2024—four days prior to that deadline (and that once that ESI agreement was reached, Defendants produced custodial ESI e-mails by March 1, 2024). (D.I. [246] at 1-2) Although Plaintiff claimed in its reply brief that this delay in coming to agreement on ESI search terms was solely Defendants' fault, (D.I. [255] at 3), that isn't clear enough to the Court from the record. And regardless, these additional facts should have been included in Plaintiff's opening brief, so that the Court could have the full picture of the relevant events (and could thus see why the “93%” figure might not be fully reflective of reality).; and (c) When this Court orders payment of fees and costs pursuant to Rule 37, it tends to be in situations where the magnitude of the offending party's conduct is repeated, clear and/or outsized, e.g., where the Court has repeatedly commented on how parties have failed to meet and confer sufficiently on discovery issues in a case and then one party later puts forward a meritless position in a discovery dispute, or where the Court specifically engages with a party on a particular issue, and that party makes consistent, repeated representations about compliance to the Court that are not accurate or that they do not deliver on, see Chervon (HK) Ltd. v. One World Techs., Inc., Civil Action No. 19-1293-GBW, Order (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2021); Hawk Mountain LLC v. Mirra, Civil Action No. 13-2083-SLR-SRF, 2016 WL 3176566, at 2 (D. Del. June 3, 2016), or where a party willfully defies a court order, see Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 110 F.R.D. 363, 373 (D. Del. 1986), or where a party's failure to produce discovery or follow a court order has significant, case-altering consequences for its opponent and/or the Court, see Tracinda Corp. v. Daimlerchrysler AG, No. Civ.A. 00-993-JJF, 2005 WL 927187, at 2-3 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2005), aff'd, 502 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2007). The Court cannot say that Defendants' mistake here was akin to those types of misconduct, nor that the mistake had a sufficiently outsized impact on the proceedings. Defendants quickly took steps to rectify the mistake, they agreed to an extension of fact discovery, and Plaintiff's trial date was not lost.; and (4) So for those reasons, the Court will deny the Motion. But the Court takes Plaintiff's point about how Defendants' (even if inadvertent) discovery failures have caused Plaintiff difficulty in this case. And Plaintiff has now made a good record of that. Therefore, the Court it will consider that record in assessing whether sanctions are appropriate if, between now and trial, there are any further discovery-related problems that are Defendants' fault. Cf. ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia, S.A., Civil Action No. 19-731-GBW-CJB, D.I. 618 (D. Del. July 19, 2024). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/07/2025. (smg) (Entered: 02/07/2025) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' motion regarding a discovery dispute (“Motion”), (D.I. [234] ), which relates to Plaintiff's request that the Court issue an order sanctioning Defendants for violating the Court's discovery orders, and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [232] ; D.I. [246] ; D.I. [255] ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With the Motion, Plaintiff is asking the Court to order that Defendants be sanctioned pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) for failing to obey prior Court orders regarding discovery; Plaintiff resultingly seeks payment of its reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C). (D.I. [232] ) In the Court's view, there is one clear way that Plaintiff has established that Defendants have in fact failed to obey a Court order—i.e., that Defendants failed to abide by the Scheduling Order's requirement that they complete substantial production of documents by February 9, 2024. Plaintiff argues this is so because Defendants produced 93% of their documents in the case after that deadline. (D.I. [45] at para. 9(b); D.I. [232] at 3-4; id., ex. A) This occurred in significant part because on June 3, 2024, Defendants realized that their custodial e-mail productions had been wrongly set to stop at a date in 2018 (the “mistake”), when they should have included custodial e-mail dating well past 2018. (D.I. [232] at 1-2; D.I. [246] at 3); (2) The Motion presents something of a tough call for the Court. That is because not only has there been a violation of a Court order, but additionally, the Court can see how (even though Defendants acted quickly to produce the missing custodial e-mail within three weeks, and thereafter agreed to an eight-week extension of fact discovery) the violation caused some harm to Plaintiff. Due to Defendants' mistake, Plaintiff now had to review a substantial percentage of Defendants' document production on a more compressed timetable than would have otherwise applied (i.e., had the mistake not been made). And this was not the first time in this case where Defendants had made what they described as inadvertent mistakes relating to discovery issues. (D.I. [246] at 4 (metadata); id. at 5 (preservation of Slack messages); cf. D.I. [208] at 79 (the Court noting that Defendants have produced a lot of documents in this case only after Plaintiff raised discovery disputes as to those documents, though also acknowledging that it could not tell if this was “fairly representative of Defendants' production” activity in the entire case)) All of these factors might help support a sanctions order pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2).; (3) However, the Court here will exercise its broad discretion in such matters by DENYING the Motion. It does so because it concludes, under the particular circumstances at play, that it would not be just to do otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); In re Atomica Design Grp., Inc., 591 B.R. 217, 234 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2018) (“Equitable factors, such as the severity of the transgression, may inform whether other circumstances make an award of sanctions unjust or warrant reducing the degree of the sanction.”). It does so for the following reasons: (a) Defendants have submitted a declaration explaining that their mistake regarding the date range issue was truly inadvertent, and the Court credits that declaration. (D.I. [249] at paras. 14-17); (b) In asserting in their opening brief that Defendants had produced 93% of their documents after the substantial completion deadline, Plaintiff failed to inform the Court that part of the reason for this was that the parties had not agreed on ESI search terms until February 5, 2024—four days prior to that deadline (and that once that ESI agreement was reached, Defendants produced custodial ESI e-mails by March 1, 2024). (D.I. [246] at 1-2) Although Plaintiff claimed in its reply brief that this delay in coming to agreement on ESI search terms was solely Defendants' fault, (D.I. [255] at 3), that isn't clear enough to the Court from the record. And regardless, these additional facts should have been included in Plaintiff's opening brief, so that the Court could have the full picture of the relevant events (and could thus see why the “93%” figure might not be fully reflective of reality).; and (c) When this Court orders payment of fees and costs pursuant to Rule 37, it tends to be in situations where the magnitude of the offending party's conduct is repeated, clear and/or outsized, e.g., where the Court has repeatedly commented on how parties have failed to meet and confer sufficiently on discovery issues in a case and then one party later puts forward a meritless position in a discovery dispute, or where the Court specifically engages with a party on a particular issue, and that party makes consistent, repeated representations about compliance to the Court that are not accurate or that they do not deliver on, see Chervon (HK) Ltd. v. One World Techs., Inc., Civil Action No. 19-1293-GBW, Order (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2021); Hawk Mountain LLC v. Mirra, Civil Action No. 13-2083-SLR-SRF, 2016 WL 3176566, at 2 (D. Del. June 3, 2016), or where a party willfully defies a court order, see Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 110 F.R.D. 363, 373 (D. Del. 1986), or where a party's failure to produce discovery or follow a court order has significant, case-altering consequences for its opponent and/or the Court, see Tracinda Corp. v. Daimlerchrysler AG, No. Civ.A. 00-993-JJF, 2005 WL 927187, at 2-3 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2005), aff'd, 502 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2007). The Court cannot say that Defendants' mistake here was akin to those types of misconduct, nor that the mistake had a sufficiently outsized impact on the proceedings. Defendants quickly took steps to rectify the mistake, they agreed to an extension of fact discovery, and Plaintiff's trial date was not lost.; and (4) So for those reasons, the Court will deny the Motion. But the Court takes Plaintiff's point about how Defendants' (even if inadvertent) discovery failures have caused Plaintiff difficulty in this case. And Plaintiff has now made a good record of that. Therefore, the Court it will consider that record in assessing whether sanctions are appropriate if, between now and trial, there are any further discovery-related problems that are Defendants' fault. Cf. ECB USA, Inc. v. Savencia, S.A., Civil Action No. 19-731-GBW-CJB, D.I. 618 (D. Del. July 19, 2024). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 02/07/2025. (smg) (Entered: 02/07/2025)
02/07/25	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	REDACTED VERSION of [404] Declaration by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 13)(Murray, Travis) (Entered: 02/07/2025)