Magistrate Judge Lindsay of the Eastern District of New York denied as premature plaintiff's motion to compel defendant's response to contention interrogatories concerning invalidity and noninfringement defenses where plaintiff had not yet repsonded to all of defedant's discovery demands and substantial discovery remained to be exchanged between the parties, in Carson Optical, Inc. v. Prym Consumer USA, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-3677, slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2012).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a), a court may postpone responses to contention interrogatories until discovery is closer to completion. Litigants in jurisdictions without local patent rules (which usually set forth strict time periods within which to exchange infringement and validity contentions) should consider invoking this rule when served with contention interrogatories early in the case.