I posted recently on the history of the local model order focusing claims and a recent order illustrating its application. There is a new order out on a similar request to limit prior art references that’s worth reviewing.
This question and more are answered in the attached order resolving a motion to dismiss in a pharmaceutical case asserting (1) lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) improper venue; and (3) the first to file rule.
Every hearing I have with Judge Albright sheds more insight into how he intends to approach recurring issues in patent cases. I wanted to set out a few overarching themes from my most recent visit, metaphorically speaking, to Franklin Avenue.
No, I’m not posing a hypothetical. This JMOL is from the plaintiff’s side, as the jury found none of the asserted claims infringed and three of the four patents’ asserted claims invalid. Then, post-briefing, the PTAB found some of the claims the jury had invalidated not invalid. The order resolving all of this is a useful analysis not just of the usual JMOL and MNT arguments, albeit by a losing plaintiff, but of this rock/paper/scissors question.
A somewhat common summary judgment motion late in patent cases is one that seeks summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s claims of willful infringement. This case provides a useful example of a ruling on such a motion which is, at least in part, aptly summarized by Collin’s shirt – “I Can Only Please One Person Each Day – Today’s Not Your Day (Tomorrow doesn’t look good either)”. Behind Collin is one of the Rose windows at Notre Dame de Paris, which we learned earlier today … are still standing.
Last month my wife emailed me from the Udvar-Hazy museum outside DC to tell me that our youngest, Parker, had turned into me – he thinks he’s an expert on every aircraft they saw and narrated his way through not one but two Smithsonian museums dedicated to air & space (note the B-17 shirt). His brother Collin’s answer to my question of what he saw at the museum that he liked the most was priceless. “The exit,” he deadpanned.
This order deals with objections to real experts based on a common complaint – that the disclosures were procedurally improper. As we all have to pass that procedural threshold to get expert testimony in at trial, it’s worth seeing what the court thought about the disclosures.