Judge Payne denied the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on the defendant’s nonpatent counterclaims and two of their affirmative defenses. Yes, this really is what the courthouse square in Marshall looks like.
A Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court found that defendant Samsung did not infringe the four asserted claims, but that Samsung had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that they were invalid.
Judge Payne concluded that Dell failed to show that this action could have been brought in NDCA, that NDCA was not “clearly more convenient”, that the motion was filed late, which has consequences, and gosh there was so much in that reply brief, wasn’t there?
Here it is – a single order with all the standards for amending – both pleadings and contentions.
Judge Payne denied the defendant’s motion to transfer to the Northern District of California, where the defendant was located (but not where the accused products were developed). The opinion addresses all the relevant factors, providing an up-to-date analysis in a case which had facts that were a little unusual.
Judge Godbey granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, noting that the asserted patents had expired, and that the plaintiff had twice failed to plead compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), thereby precluding recovery of any pre-suit damages.
A Waco jury in Judge Albright’s court found all of the plaintiff Impinj’s patents infringed and none invalid, and awarded $1.8 million of the requested approximately $2.3 million. The defendant NXP had countersued for infringement of its own patents, but the jury found those claims not infringed. I understand that whatever invalidity claims there were against the NXP patents was dropped before trial.
I posted yesterday on a judge’s order denying an unopposed motion for leave to seal a filing, noting the problems commonly encountered with such filings. A reader forwarded me the court’s standing order setting forth the summary judgment-like briefing requirements parties must comply with in order to file any sentence of a document under seal, and I thought it was worth some analysis, both of the order itself and of how to comply with its efficiently.
This brief discovery order reflects what is discoverable with regard to Apple’s revenue associated with the accused products, alleged noninfringing alternatives, licenses, and certain user interfaces.
I don’t usually post on text orders, but this one is very helpful, as it provides a judge’s take on what showing is needed to depart from a court’s form orders.
