A recent patent-case appeal case involves a defendant refusing to attend court in person, causing a stir in the legal community. A federal circuit panel signaled a general consensus, deeming it improbable the sanctions imposed by a district judge against a patent-infringement offender would be overturned.
The plaintiff in question, Lori LaPray, refused to travel to testify as part of the judge’s investigation into litigation finacing in his court. LaPray, a paralegal and owner of Backertop Licensing LLC (a company linked to the prominent patent-monetization firm IP Edge) defied an order by the District of Delaware Chief Judge, Colm F. Connolly. She opted not to travel to Delaware to appear for what she referred to as an “inquisition”. This intriguing case can be followed in detail on
Bloomberg Law.
In this particular case, the ramifications of refusing to participate appear fairly stark. Faced with a skeptical appellate panel, LaPray is confronted with severe pushback from a judicial system intent on enforcing its summons: quite plainly, litigation cannot proceed in a just and efficient manner if operational rules, such as court attendance, are not respected. After all, participation in various stages of litigation is necessary to ensure a fair trail, and the refusal of a plaintiff to appear in person for the court proceedings distinctly muddies the waters.