I thought superdetailing the 1/200 CSM and LM for my Apollo 11 Saturn V was painstaking – until I read the attached 32 pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law on a defendant’s assertion that four claims were invalid as being directed toward ineligible subject matter. The Court concluded that one claim was invalid, but the other three were not. If you’re interested in detailed Section 101 analysis – this is the order you want. On the other hand, if you’re interested in scratchbuilt models of NASA hardware … I highly recommend you look into golf or fishing instead.
Several months ago I posted on Judge Gilstrap’s new standing order on the procedure for using juror questionnaires in his court, which requires coordinating the request with the deputy clerk in charge. In the attached case which is fast approaching trial, the parties submitted a proposed questionnaire, but didn’t follow the standing order. The Court denied the motion for use of the submitted questionnaire for failure to comply with the order.
I am asked on a regular basis whether a motion will be granted “automatically” if it is agreed or unopposed. The answer is a lawyerly “it depends”. While judges say that they are in the business of resolving disputes, not agreements, there are exceptions, and as here, they usually seem to deal with moving dates in a docket control order.
This is another case where an EDTX court has allowed the addition of an individual who was alleged to have controlled litigation decisions for a patent plaintiff to a case for purposes of satisfying a Section 285 fee award.
Last December General Order 18-10 made a number of changes to the EDTX local rules. A significant one was amendment of the patent local rules dealing with expert disclosures in connection with claim construction. A recent opinion applies that change and provides some new guidance on what the requirements mean.
So shoot me if I’m off topic. My engineering student (who is still looking for an internship in electrical and computer engineering this summer, if you know anyone) comes home from Baylor Thursday night for Easter and cooks a prototype of his new “folded steak” recipe (he cut an 8 oz. filet partway multiple times, unfolds it to cook, then folds it again over some kind of herbed butter because no one needs to live forever). It worked so well he made eight more for the whole family Saturday night.
You know what ALSO worked well recently? The plaintiff’s motion to amend its infringement contentions which not only worked – the defendant’s related motion for sanctions was denied as well. (The cross motion for sanctions for filing a motion for sanctions was also denied because of course).
One of the lasting effects of Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s lengthy stay at the White House in December of 1941 was President Roosevelt ordering a replica of his “map room” to be created in what had been the billiards room just steps from his elevator and his doctor’s office on the ground floor of the mansion. In memory of its use, for many years the last situation map prepared for President Roosevelt on April 3, 1945 hung over the mantel in this room. But FDR’s interest in precisely where his nation’s units were may pale in comparison to patent lawyers’ interest in reading the latest determinations of whether certain conduct gets a thumb tack for “exceptional” for purposes of an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
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.