Motions to dismiss insufficient defenses “or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” are in practice a pretty rare bird, and orders resolving them even more so. So while there is not, regrettably, anything “scandalous” being dealt with in this recent order, it does at least take neglected Rule 12(f) out for a spin.
Two of patent litigants’ favorite topics come together in this afternoon’s essay by Judge Payne ruling on a defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of willful infringement. (Ever wonder why “infringement” has an “e” and “judgment” doesn’t? I have, but just the once). So crack open a peanut butter cup, and let’s see what the Court had to say.
These postverdict orders arise out of a case tried last fall, and resolved the parties’ disputes over whether the jury’s damages award should be enhanced, and an ongoing royalty established.
The analogy may be a bit overstated, but it is true that there are likely no two limine rulings that are the same. Each case raises a different set of issues, each lawyer has a different level of comfort with having or not having a limine on certain issues, and even where the issues are ones that are frequently repeated, the rulings can vary slightly, depending on how the issues are presented.
A recent order by Judge Payne is actually adopting the parties’ “joint” set of proposed limines, but still illustrates some of these characteristics. These are not issues that the parties disputed, but it is useful to see the types of issues that parties don’t dispute – but want a limine order on anyway.
The Marshall Chamber of Commerce gets to celebrate another year as Corporate Spelling Bee champs – we held off a strong challenge by Republic Elite, a local cabinet manufacturer. Remember to support your local adult literacy organization – click here for a search form for locate the one in your community.
Yesterday saw a fairly unique proceeding in Judge Gilstrap’s courtroom in Marshall when he and Chief Judge Barbara Lynn (neither pictured at left) conducted a joint claim construction hearing in the case of Seven Networks v. Google & Samsung. Judge Lynn has a related case in the NDTX, so several months ago the judges coordinated the proceedings to combine the Markman presentations. While judges in numerous districts – including Judges Lynn and Gilstrap – have coordinated proceedings in related cases in different districts before, especially after the AIA required cases to be filed separately in more situations, conducting a joint hearing is, to my knowledge, a first. It will be interesting to see if the order is joint as well.