In another example of the way that patent-heavy courts benefit from one another’s expertise, Judge Albright just issued a set of standard set of limine rulings (1-23) and limit of 5 additional motions per side that is substantively identical to Judge Gilstrap’s.
Senior Judge Nowlin found that the plaintiff had properly alleged copyright validity, but that copyright management information (“CMI”) claims require an additional element be pleaded, that of an underlying act of infringement. The court denied the motion to transfer, finding that venue was more convenient for the Austin–headquartered plaintiff in the Austin Division and that all of the cited witnesses are party witnesses, who are considered less key to the decision, writing that “[a] court should tightly focus on the convenience of key nonparty witnesses when making a transfer decision.”
Judge Payne denied the motion, finding that there was “no doubt” that claim one of the asserted patent is directed to patent eligible subject matter, noting that the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly held” the claims directed to an improvement in computer or network functionality are patent eligible in this case, the patent claims were directed to a tangible improvement to computer network functionality through the use of a logical ring monitoring system.
This is another “never committed an alleged act of infringement” improper venue case. In it, Judge Albright develops the procedure for how such an allegation is tested, eventually concluding that not only were there not any of the alleged acts of infringement in the district, but there was no regular and established place of business either.
Judge Kernodle denied the third party’s motion to quash a subpoena issued in a case pending in his court for the reason that FRCP 45(a)(3) requires motions to quash subpoenas to be issued in the court for the district where compliance is required, here the Northern District of Georgia, just a few states down I-20 from Tyler. (Interestingly, Ian Fleming has no fewer than two women in his novels describe James Bond as resembling Carmichael).
Judge Brown granted part of the injunctive relief requested, finding that the plaintiffs had established all four requirements for a preliminary injunction relating to their Lanham Act claims as well as their breach of contract claim relating to the post-termination non-competition covenant.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to FRCP 50(b), finding that substantial evidence exists supporting the jury’s verdict on each of the grounds raised, and that none of the grounds compel setting aside the jury’s verdict or granting a new trial.
It’s not as confusing as it sounds – the plaintiff was seeking to stay based on IPRs it had filed against the patents that the defendant had asserted in a counterclaim – but after the PTO had issued office actions rejecting all claims of one patent, and some of another. Judge Albright denied the motion, noting that the fact that the defendant in this competitor case had not sought a preliminary injunction did not preclude it from asserting that it would face undue prejudice if the court granted the stay.