Another Waco case ruling on a defendant’s claim that the asserted claims are unpatentable subject matter.
Plaintiff sought “targeted venue discovery” based on arguments made by the defendants at a recent hearing on the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of denial of their prior venue motion.
Your may have a good office location. But do you have an 18 wheeler of Dos Equis in front of your office on a Friday afternoon?
As I posted several months ago, and more recently in connection with a recent decision, last year’s EDTX rule changes included a new requirement regarding expert disclosure at the P.R. 4-3 stage. We now have a second opinion interpreting the new provision in light of a dispute that has arisen over it.
Marshall’s Main Street Program‘s Mornings on Main with Debbie Parker featured our law offices in the historic Hub building on their If These Walls Could Talk video series on Facebook this morning. It’s an entertaining four-minute introduction to our somewhat idiosyncratic offices (including the “tree house” and hobbit door) in an 1870’s building that served our community as a shoe store for over a century before we repurposed it as a law office.
I think it’s also the first time I’ve talked to Debbie that I didn’t hand her my credit card – she owns a women’s clothing boutique a couple of blocks up North Washington, and I’m married to one of her regular customers.
The plaintiff in this case sought an order compelling mediation. Based on the briefing, apparently all the parties are engaging in objectionable conduct, but it didn’t really matter to the outcome – the motion was denied.
Of all the opinions Judge Hall authored while I clerked for him, Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993) seems to be the most-cited. While the case dealt with several issues, its central holding, that once the “substantial similarity” test is met, the “first-to-file” rule accords the first-filed court the responsibility to determine which case should proceed, was the part of the opinion cited again by Judge Gilstrap earlier this month in transferring a case.
Docket Navigator recently released one of its periodic special reports. This one takes a look at several interesting questions its subscribers have asked, and the detailed analyses they undertook to find the answers. The report is interesting primarily because of the unexpected nature of the questions. Unlike virtually every other report, the questions aren’t the ones you’d most want answers to – but here someone did, and it’s interesting trying to picture why.
The parties filed cross-motions for sanctions arising out of conduct in a deposition, resulting in an order from Judge Albright.
It’s not the end of any logical portion of the year, but I got curious this morning what the patent case filing trends for the year were, so I ran the numbers for some of the more popular districts for readers and here’s what I came up with.