Highlighting the significance of procedure, discovery disputes
and the limits of judicial discretion, the US Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a
motion to dismiss for lack of standing and vacated several orders
for abuse its discretion. Drone Techs., Inc. v. Parrot S.A.,
Parrot, Inc., Case Nos. 15-1892; -1955 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 29,
2016) (Schall, J) (Newman, J, concurring).
Drone is a Taiwanese corporation and the assignee of the two
asserted patents, which are generally directed to systems for
remotely controlled machines. Parrot designs, develops and markets
hobby aircrafts, i.e., “drones,” and offers
them for sale in the United States. Drone sued Parrot in 2014
alleging indirect infringement. Parrot answered and asserted
counterclaims and affirmative defenses. As a sanction for violating
two discovery orders, however, the district court struck
Parrot’s counterclaims and defenses, which resulted in a
default judgment
