What is the proper way to proceed in patent litigation?

Dealing piece-meal with every procedural issue, and deferring rulings, is not conducive to proper case management. To proceed in such manner would be an abdication of my role as case manager, and would simply frustrate the orderly conduct and completion of the reference. More than 100 years ago, Lord Esher in Ungar v. Sugg, [1892] 9 R.P.C. 113 (CA) at 116-117 aptly observed that patent litigation often became overly complex and costly: "It used to be said that there was something catching in a horse case: that it made the witnesses perjure themselves as a matter of course. It seems to me that there is something catching in a patent case, which is that it makes everybody argue, and ask questions to an interminable extent -a patent case with no more difficult question to try than any other case instead of lasting six hours is invariably made to last at least six days, if not twelve. I am sure there ought to be a remedy for it. ¼ Now, what is the result of all this? Why, that a man had better have his patent infringed, or have anything happen to him in this world, short of losing all his family by influenza, than have a dispute about a patent. His patent is swallowed up, and he is ruined. Whose fault is it? It is really not the fault of the law; it is the fault of the mode of conducting the law in a patent case. That is what causes all this mischief.