With apologies to Elizabeth Barret Browning, let me count some of the very interesting ways this case tells us that infringement claims can be lost.
Parties sometimes seek to add specific claims or defenses to cases late. This order is a succinct example of what adding such a “rifle shot” defense and conducting necessary discovery on it can look like.
I don’t mean this to sound like an ad for Saddleback Leather (slogan: “They’ll Fight Over It When You’re Dead”) but I got an email promotion from them yesterday that (while supplies last) new purchases come with a leather-bound U.S. Constitution and Great Seal of the United States coaster. Well how can you say no to that the week before the Fourth. And a lawyer can never have enough briefcases, right? Seriously, you’ll see their bags around the district – a few of us are die hard fans and compare our latest acquisitions at hearings.
I am headed out for oysters, but let me leave you with another batch of interesting limine rulings, including whether a memo entitled the “Korean Conflict” is admissible.
Our second Oyster (holding) deals with court costs and attorneys fees in connection with a different prevailing defendant.
Today’s first Oyster (ruling) is on one of the defendants’ SJ motion on its license & release defense.
One of the regular stops on the Texas patent CLE circuit is TexasBarCLE’s Advanced Patent Litigation course, which is co-sponsored by the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Texas. It focuses on educational programs and the exchange of information about new or proposed developments in the intellectual property field. The course is held at the Hyatt Regency Hill Country Resort & Spa, at 9800 Hyatt Resort Drive, San Antonio, TX 78251, (210) 647-1234 , and yes, there is a hotel discount. The brochure is here, and you can register here. And yes, there is a lazy river (consult a Texan for what that means).
Plaintiff sought leave to serve summons and the Original Complaint on Defendant through its domestic subsidiary and US-based counsel. Judge Albright reviewed the relevant standards before deciding whether due process was satisfied in this case.
The Court denied the parties’ previous request for a stay, but on reconsideration determined that a stay was appropriate, and explained why.