Applying CAFC Venue Rulings

A recent venue ruling from Waco applied numerous recent Federal Circuit opinion to the analysis.
A recent venue ruling from Waco applied numerous recent Federal Circuit opinion to the analysis.
The standards for an extension to respond to motion for summary judgment under FRCP 56(d) don’t get discussed much. But they do here.
This motion to dismiss raised issues regarding claim splitting and improper venue which were novel, and issues regarding indirect and willful infringement which were not.
The issue of the production of documents in prior related litigation was one of several issues taken up by Judge Gilliland in this order.
The court granted the motion, with leave for the defendant to amend its answer “again.”
The issue in this SDTX case was whether the court would dismiss the IC and induced infringement claims as not plausible.
An interesting procedural background to this case, involving a declaratory action in New Jersey which was transferred to Waco.
Judge Gilstrap ruled on defendant Apple’s postverdict motions in this case, which was tried to a jury in August 2020, and later had a damages-only retrial.
Morning hearing with sturm und drang before Judge Gilliland on three 500-word discovery dispute submissions in Waco case – afternoon scheduling conferences in Marshall where I announce defendant in one case and plaintiff in the next – and it’s same opposing counsel in both.
Another defense verdict in a patent case in Waco, providing an update to the trial win statistics.