Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc
Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
A recent decision highlights the broad authority federal judges have to require key individuals to appear in person, especially when investigating possible fraud in patent litigation. In Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., the owner of a patent-holding company, Lori LaPray, was ordered by the District of Delaware to testify in person about concerns that her company and its associates may have concealed the true parties involved in numerous patent lawsuits. When LaPray failed to appear, the court imposed daily monetary sanctions, and she appealed, arguing that the court’s order violated rules limiting how far a person can be forced to travel for court.
The appeals court rejected LaPray’s arguments, clarifying that the usual 100-mile travel limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 applies only to subpoenas issued by parties or attorneys—not to orders issued directly by a judge. The court explained that when a judge acts on their own authority to investigate potential misconduct, they are not bound by the same geographic restrictions. This distinction is important because it ensures that courts can effectively oversee the conduct of parties and their representatives, especially when there are signs of hidden interests or possible fraud.
The case arose amid broader concerns about a pattern of behavior by certain patent monetization firms, which allegedly set up shell companies to file lawsuits while hiding the real parties in interest. The judge in Delaware took steps to uncover who was truly behind these lawsuits and whether any fraud had been committed on the court. When the company’s owner resisted in-person testimony, citing personal hardships and travel difficulties, the court found those reasons insufficient—especially since she had chosen to file lawsuits in courts across the country.
Ultimately, the appeals court affirmed the judge’s actions, emphasizing that in-person testimony is sometimes necessary to assess credibility and get to the bottom of complex issues. The decision serves as a reminder that those who initiate litigation—especially on a large scale—may be required to answer tough questions in person, and that courts have the inherent power to enforce such orders to protect the integrity of the judicial process.