My mother used to sing the song High Hopes – you know, the one about the ant trying to move the rubber tree plant? Noninfringement summary judgment motions always remind me of that song because it’s often difficult to get those across the finish lines when the standard precludes granting the motion if there are genuine disputes of material fact. This order shows how parties on both sides address the all-important factual dispute question for these motions.
Ever think about asking the Court to redact parts of one of its orders? You might want to read this recent order from an Eastern District of Texas court, which provides guidance on how (and when) to protect confidential information in court proceedings. And no, ELMO is not your friend here.
Had a great time yesterday with Suann Ingle presenting on the use of social media in jury selection as the snow began to fall in NYC. I was the only person who seemed to enjoy it last night.
Which changed this morning when my flight back to Texas got cancelled, meaning I’ll spend my 22nd anniversary hanging out in LaGuardia, looking out the blue, blue skies – largely empty of airplanes.
But I have all my favorite toys with me, so it’s actually not a bad place to get work done. And as we were planning to spend the weekend to Dallas anyway, I won’t even have to do the 2 1/2 hour extension to Marshall tonight.
ILT learned long ago that if we schedule Tom Irving as the last speaker – nobody leaves. So I am, once again, thoroughly enjoying having Tom yell at the audience about the ethical pitfalls inherent in patent prosecution.
There was a priceless moment this morning at the ILT IP seminar in Plano. The Dallas Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division was presenting a Jeopardy! Trivia game on IP trivia, but unlike the one I did last month, theirs was live and the different rows were competing against each other.
One of the questions asked a very technical question about a rule in IP, and no one got it precisely right. The presenter put up the answer, which was lengthy and detailed, and the entire room of patent lawyers, seemingly as one, went into claim drafting mode and concluded that the answer was in fact correctly worded, and explained to its collective self why.
It then went on to the next question as if nothing had happened.
It’s one of those weeks when I use all of my packing pouches swapping out clothes as I go from city to city attending and presenting at IP seminars, and fortunately getting in a little family time as well.
I’m spending the first two days in Plano at the Institute for Law & Technology’s 56th Annual Conference on Intellectual Property Law. I cochaired the conference the past two years so it’s a pleasure this year to sit back and enjoy what is one of the preeminent IP conferences in the country. EDTX judges Rodney Gilstrap and Amos Mazzant will be joined by new WDTX-Waco Judge Alan Albright for the lunch judges panel later today, and I’m looking forward to that.
Then it’s off to New York to speak again this year at
PLI’s Advanced Patent Litigation course on ethical issues in jury selection, focusing on the challenges raised by social media with Suann Ingle.
The reward for a busy week is a couple of days back in Dallas with Jamie celebrating our 22nd anniversary Friday by playing foodie all weekend. As you can tell in the picture with our Baylor Bear from last year, she’s aged a bit better than me.
Thanks to Alan Ratliff for flagging this docket control order from the Southern District of New York from earlier this year which adopted (pursuant to the parties’ joint proposal) the Eastern District of Texas’ patent local rules for infringement and invalidity contentions and claim construction disclosures. The only fly in the ointment is that I wonder if the parties now know that P.R. 4-3 is being substantively amended effective December 1, six weeks before the relevant due date in the case?
This order arises out of a defendant’s request to strike a plaintiff damages expert’s testimony regarding litigation settlement agreements. As the Court notes, the analysis is a case-by-case one, which considers the facts of each agreement, which makes this case another one to be reviewed to see which side of the line these agreements fall on.
I had a chance over the weekend to do some maintenance on the “back office” side of the weblog, and subscribers should see a few changes. I’ve gotten some bugs worked out of the renewal dates for individual and law firm/practice section subscribers, which in some cases weren’t being handled correctly. In the course of doing that I discovered that some of the daily email subscribers had an expiration date, which wasn’t intended, so I’m correcting that as well.
The signup page here is where you can add and correct your subscription information. If you’re renewing, the system will recognize you if you use the same email and password – which will save you from having to create a new account, which I know a few people have done. Just email me if you need your information or have any other problems.
And as always, if you’re interested in hearing about particular types of cases, let me know.