Judge Payne denied the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on the defendant’s nonpatent counterclaims and two of their affirmative defenses. Yes, this really is what the courthouse square in Marshall looks like.
A Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court found that defendant Samsung did not infringe the four asserted claims, but that Samsung had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that they were invalid.
Judge Payne concluded that Dell failed to show that this action could have been brought in NDCA, that NDCA was not “clearly more convenient”, that the motion was filed late, which has consequences, and gosh there was so much in that reply brief, wasn’t there?
Here it is – a single order with all the standards for amending – both pleadings and contentions.
Judge Payne denied the defendant’s motion to transfer to the Northern District of California, where the defendant was located (but not where the accused products were developed). The opinion addresses all the relevant factors, providing an up-to-date analysis in a case which had facts that were a little unusual.
Judge Godbey granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, noting that the asserted patents had expired, and that the plaintiff had twice failed to plead compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), thereby precluding recovery of any pre-suit damages.
