When are dependent claims of patent infringement estopped as a result of a judgment on their independents in a prior case?
Always good to see an order indicating when a subpoena crosses the line. Even if we did have to … wait for it.
If you’ve been looking forward to watching Judge Alan Albright’s first patent trial, you’ll just have to wait a little longer. The case set for next month has been continued.
Really enjoyed my visit to NYC last week to present on social media & jury selection with Suann Ingle.
Enjoyed moderating the judges panel with Judge Barker from EDTX and Judge Clark Cheney from the ITC today at the ILT’s IP Law Conference at CAIL. Judge J. Campbell Barker for EDTX-Tyler and Judge Clark Cheney from the International Trade Commission discussed their practices and provided pointers on written and oral advocacy at the ILT’s annual IP Law conference at CAIL today. Both are former clerks to CAFC judge William C. Bryson, so there was a lot of agreement, and I had a great time working with them to prepare the presentation. They also exchanged their favorite typographical formatting cheat codes, but I’m sworn to secrecy on that.
A Marshall jury found that Wells Fargo Bank infringed on two of USAA’s patents relating to technology that allows users to deposit checks using mobile devices and awarded USAA $200 million.
Last week a Marshall jury found by clear and convincing evidence that, from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, the asserted claims only involved activities that were well-understood, routine, and
conventional as of the relevant date. But why were they asked this?
Summary judgment is a good tool for dispensing with discrete claims or defenses, in this case 19 of them, plus change. No word on whether Katherine Heigl will be playing the lawyer (but that would be cool).
It may be a 12(b) trifecta, but the principal issue in this recent decision from Waco is personal jurisdiction and the stream of commerce theor(ies).
At issue here was whether the defendant had been properly served, but more importantly, were they a proper defendant under 35 U.S.C. § 299?