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.
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.
Did you know there was a Texas Business Opportunities Act? I did not know that. But here it is, one of the pleaded causes of action in a case brought by unhappy franchisees of a non-surgical weight loss business. Which brings up another thing I’d never heard of before – a Sculpt Pod. Oh sure, I saw it in Little Shop of Horrors but as a legit weight loss device?
All of which, of course, cannot help but generate a motion to remand this very interesting set of facts and causes of action to back to state court, with some interesting observations by the Court on when a claim arises under federal law.
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.
This Monday’s False Claims Act case is a report & recommendation by a magistrate judge, adopted by the district judge, which addressed a motion to dismiss relator’s claims under the FCA’s first to file rule, and motions to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) and FRCP 9, which implicated both normal and heightened standards of pleadings. No objections to the report were filed, thus the district court’s review was limited to plain error / manifest injustice, and it did not find any.