Maurizio Ferraris, in his Introduzione a Derrida writes:

Kant's idea is that, once having found the categories through which the subject relates itself to the world (le categorie attraverso cui l'io si riferisce al mondo), it is still necessary to specify something intermediate, partly sensible, partly insensible, that will assure the passage from the pure forms of the intellect (the categories) to sensibility.

This intermediate element, this 'third' between sensibility and intellect, is called by Kant a schema, something which is at the basis both of the constitution of ideality (idealità) and of meaning, and also of our passivity in relation to experience. He argues that this schema is the product of a mysterious faculty, the productive or transcendental immagination.
   Derrida proposes a solution that is a little less esoteric.
. . .
   In brief, writing really seems to be a strong candidate for identifying this "third" element between sensibility and intellect. It certainly is a lot less mystical than the "transcendental immagination." Between the subject (l'io) and the world there is something in common, the trace ("traccia" can also mean "sign").

Of course, Ferraris is not the first person to compare Derrida and Kant. I believe Rorty also has an article titled "Is Derrida a transcendental philosopher?"