I wrote recently on the surprising interest many lawyers have in removal and remand issues, and wanted to add to the database a recent order from Judge Mazzant in Sherman providing his take on removal caselaw.
Much like this photo of our twins after seeing their first Broadway show last month, there’s content here to make you both happy and sad.
First, have you ever been frustrated looking for an order to give that obnoxious partner/associate that wants to file a motion to strike something because it’s a few hours late? Well, click through and the Court’s haiku-like resolution is yours to embrace.
The Court declines to do so.
[Defendant] has not suffered any prejudice.
But there’s substantive information in this order granting a motion to strike portions of a plaintiff’s expert report because they are different than what was in their infringement contentions that’ll put a smile on your face.
Not all patents that end up before the proverbial “patent death squads” at the PTAB are never heard from again. In some cases the patents (and the invalidity arguments made against them) come back, but the thing you may have to decide is if, like Gandalf the White, the trip was an improvement (note the straightened hair), or like Stephen King’s Pet Sematery … not.
That issue was presented in a recent EDTX case where a patent returned to the trial court after a stay during which the PTAB upheld the patentability of each of the challenged claims for which the IPR was instituted. (No, the examining panel wasn’t made up of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Frosty the Snowman – that really does happen). The plaintiff then sought to trim the defendant’s invalidity case based on the events that transpired before the PTAB.
As readers might recall, there is a case pending before the Supreme Court involving the correct interpretation of the word “resides” in the venue statute. (Photo at left of Collin, Parker and I hanging out with the statue of our favorite Supreme Court justice, our home town’s namesake John Marshall at the S. Ct. building last month). A decision is expected later this month, or the next. Or maybe not.
While any court’s analysis of what the outcome of a pending or potential motion might be if the current interpretation of “resides” by the Federal Circuit is reversed is at best dicta and at worst a WAG, I have started warehousing hints, clues and theories from courts such as that analyzed below as to what happens if TC Heartland causes venue law to jump from the Prime to the Kelvin time line as it were.
Ever wonder what complete and total happiness looks like? Well, my youngest Parker finally getting to see the completely restored and illuminated starship Enterprise at the Smithsonian last month comes pretty close.
But something else that also comes pretty close is when you file a motion to dismiss a patent case, the plaintiff dismisses the case with prejudice and the Court stops them at the door and asks you if you’d like to get your costs and attorney’s fees back as well.
That was the case in this recent set of decisions by Magistrate Judge Love and Judge Schroeder in this Tyler case which outline some interesting issues with regard to the interplay between motions to dismiss and summary judgment, as well as voluntary dismissals.
Last fall I posted on a significant opinion awarding enhanced damages by Judge Mazzant in Sherman. He recently amended the order and judgment in response to a motion for reconsideration to reflect some additional activity since the original findings.
I was talking with a legal news reporter the other day and she seemed startled that local federal courts try more than patent cases. While I generally don’t post on them because most readers are more interested in patent cases, they try personal injury, antitrust, civil rights, and criminal cases. Employment, class action, social security, bankruptcy … you name it, they try it. The other day when there were three jury trials going at the same time, only one was patent – the others were antitrust and discrimination.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict Friday in favor of the defendant in a hip implant case. While I haven’t followed the case in detail, it appears to be primarily a product liability case, although it appears other causes of action were also alleged, including deceptive trade practices. Robin Richardson summarizes the trial and its outcome here.