“According to the FedEx Defendants’ advertising, they are “everywhere” you need them to be,” Judge Gilstrap wrote in this opinion. “However, in their Motion to Dismiss Defendants argue that they are everywhere but this District, at least with respect to venue. The Court disagrees.”
The Court’s opinion in this case is useful on numerous pressing questions. First, post-Micron what activity (or lack thereof) constitutes waiver of a Fourco improper venue defense; and second, what activity is sufficient to constitute a “regular and established place of business”, as analyzed below, including related questions of burden of proof, imputing contacts, venue discovery, and infringing acts.
It’s purely coincidental that today’s Fed Ex delivery to my office was the ribbon copy of my patent, but it seemed to be worth memorializing in this post about Fed Ex. But yeah, I’m an inventor now.
Last week a Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict in favor of the defendant in a patent case involving four claims from three patents.
2017 has been a golden year for 101 motions in the Eastern District of Texas, with the reported grant rate – at least for the six month period from last fall through this spring – hovering at 75%, compared to 18% in Delaware. It’s even triple the 25% grant rate during the same period in the Northern District of Texas, according to the below table from Bilksiblog.com. Last week saw another negative data point on 101 motions for plaintiffs, as Judge Gilstrap granted a 101 motion on one patent – and on a claim that the PTAB had declined to institute review on – 45 days after the motion was filed, and stayed the case as to several others pending PTAB proceedings.
These JMOL rulings arise out of a trial last year in a competitor case in which the jury found both sides’ patents invalid, and neither side’s patents infringed. Judge Gilstrap observed, “[a]s Shakespeare’s Mercutio might have said if he been a member of this jury, “A pox upon both your houses.” William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliette, Act 3, Sc. 1.”
As we will see, it isn’t getting any better for either party.
With apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien, I’ve had people ask me this for 25 years and I knew what the answer was, but didn’t have a court-approved formula to cite to. Now I do.
While I was on my merry way to Waco Friday afternoon for the 25th anniversary of the Class of 1992 (I graduated from Baylor Law that February) a Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court was wrapping up deliberations in a patent infringement case.
This recent order by Judge Schroeder granting for the most part a motion to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter builds on an earlier grant as to different claims from two of the same patents. Accordingly, the procedural history is a little complex, but the discussion rewarding …
Plaintiff filed six patent cases asserting four patents, which were later consolidated. Defendant sought a stay of the consolidated cases, and Judge Gilstrap recently granted the motion as set forth below.
The most recent batch of bimonthly patent case scheduling conferences was held last week in Marshall, and as usual I have a brief rundown of the results.
Following a jury verdict awarding damages for past infringement, the court and the parties have to work out what the appropriate form of relief for any future infringement will be, taking into account the availability of an injunction and the appropriate rate for any royalties applied to ongoing activity. In a recent opinion an EDTX judge addressed the situation where no injunction was sought, no enhanced damages issue was presented, and the sole issue was what royalty rate should be applied to future activity.