With the popularity of the PTAB for parallel patent proceedings (this is your periodic reminder that Broadcast News is the best movie ever made) occasionally there are some disputes over what materials from district court cases can be used in PTAB proceedings. This opinion notes the issue and resolves it.
While not as exciting as a JMOL ruling, limine/pretrial rulings are still interesting. JMOLs are more thorough, focus on the issues that were actually raised, and contain sufficient context to explain what the issue is and why the motion is being granted or denied. Motions in limine/pretrial rulings, on the other hand, are like watching the two minutes of Star Wars immediately before the rebel spacecraft engage the Death Star. There’s some important information about the case as the rebel pilots prepare for battle, of course, but it’s incomplete and can be misleading about what the key issues really are. Who’s this “Ben” guy, what’s the deal with the Cinnabon lady, and good riddance to Han and the hairy guy.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court rendered a verdict Friday in a patent case involving claims by Intellectual Ventures against defendants T-Mobile and Ericsson.
Following the addition of U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle to the Eastern District of Texas bench late last year, most of the Tyler docket, including this case, was reassigned from Judge Gilstrap and Judge Schroeder to Judge Kernodle. Judge Kernodle just entered an order denying the defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim which argued that the patents in suit claimed ineligible subject matter.
This is a 1400(b) case in which the court passes on the plaintiff’s claim that the “regular and established place of business” test was satisfied. But the case had an interesting twist I had not seen previously.
This picture of my grad school roommate Johnny Hatch with a pile of rattlesnakes at the Texas Capitol yesterday (it was Sweetwater Rattlesnake Roundup so this is actually fairly normal) has nothing to do with this post. I just thought it’d be interesting for you non-Texans. Although, come to think of it, there are those that would put alleged SLAPP and anti-SLAPP suits in the same category as a bag of rattlesnakes. Let me explain why.
One of my favorite law-related blogs is David Coale’s 600 Camp, which follows commercial litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I normally don’t post on appellate decisions, but this morning’s 600 Camp post on the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Puga v. RCX Solutions, Inc., No. 17-41282 (Feb. 1, 2019), had so many useful tidbits that I just had to. In it, the Fifth Circuit affirmed (I have to respect visuals that are as witty and insightful as my own) a substantial judgment following a jury trial in the SDTX in a case arising from a collision with a truck. The decision has useful tidbits on Rule 50 motions, objections to the jury charge, the admissibility of expert testimony and and remittitur, which involves the “disproportionality” analysis. It might even be even better than a JMOL opinion, and you know how I feel about those.
I like orders dealing with damages experts. Mainly it’s because I understand them, because they all deal with … dollars. And I recognize things like reasonable royalties and lost profits, and damages bases because I see them all the time, and they don’t change much from case to case. In short, it’s like watching American football instead of Australian rules – I’m not Tony Romo, but I can still appreciate a well-executed play, or a totally botched one. This order analyzes a motion to strike a damages expert’s royalty and lost profits opinions, and concludes that only the latter meet the standards for admissibility. In much the same way that their kicker was the only Rams player to get points on the board last night.
I try not to update posts this quickly, but the above new chart from Darryl Towell at Docket Navigator this morning was too good to pass up. Yesterday I provided the 2018 patent filings for Delaware, EDTX, NDCA and CDCA by month as shown below, with the lagniappe of a svelte line showing Delaware’s non-ANDA filings as well. It was a chart only a mother could love. This morning DN sent over a revised chart by quarter, and a couple of trends I didn’t focus on yesterday are now apparent.
I’m in the final stages of a paper for the Litigation Section’s Advocate quarterly about the effect of TC Heartland on patent practice, and today I’ve been looking at preliminary data from Docket Navigator’s forthcoming analysis of 2018 patent filings for selected districts that has some interesting information.