This is an order resolving a motion to compel on damages issues in a patent case. At issue was whether the Defendants, a parent and a subsidiary, were required to provide financial data on infringing sales made by the parent to entities other than the named sub, and whether Defendants were required to provide financial data for certain additional products. The Court granted one but denied the other, citing the “p” word and providing a useful list of things not to do to preserve a claim for discovery.
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 case presents one of the more interesting examples of partial stays due to parallel proceedings before the PTO, with the court staying some of the claims, and severing and proceeding to trial on others. It also illustrates the consequences of not joining in pending IPRs.
While the rest of us were settling down to watch the election returns Tuesday a Tyler jury in Judge Schroeder’s court rendered a verdict in a patent case involving two claims from a single patent.
It feels like a Monday again, so let’s look at another False Claims Act case. This is another report & recommendation adopted by the district judge which addressed five separate motions to dismiss the Relator’s First Amended Complaint. And they seem familiar, somehow.