Motions For JMOL and New Trial and/or Remittitur Denied
In another order arising out of litigation involving the same parties, Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, and for new trial and/or remittitur.
Divisions
Motion For New Trial Denied
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s motion for new trial in this case in which the Marshall jury awarded the plaintiff a one-time lump sum of $4.3 million as a reasonable royalty on September 16, 2022.
Motion To Transfer Venue Denied; In re Google Addressed
Judge Albright denied the motion, noting that the relevant evidence was either located in the WDTX or remotely accessible in the WDTX, with none only accessible in the CDCA, and therefore under In re Planned Parenthood, the sources of proof factor was neutral. As was the court congestion factor under In re Google. In fact the only factor which wasn’t neutral was the presence of other litigation, which the court found weighed strongly against transfer – accordingly the CDCA was not show to be a clearly more convenient forum.
Waco Dismissal
Judge Biery granted the motion by defendant Google to dismiss the plaintiff’s case, finding the infringement claim not plausible – and noting a recent NDCA opinion finding the same thing. The Court also denied leave to amend.
IAM Article: “EDTX judge’s new limine order takes name-calling off the table”
My article on Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s new standing order on motions in limine was published on IAM last week – it’s accessible to subscribers here. Unlike most of my writing, which is perhaps more directed towards practitioners, it is focused on what clients might want to know about the order. The principal takeaway is that it ought to save clients money, and help inform them what sorts of issues and arguments are off the table in Judge Gilstrap’s court.
Post-Verdict Motions, Including Inequitable Conduct
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law, letting the jury’s award of $75,229 stand. In a separate order, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law, he found that the defendant had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence its inequitable conduct defense.
Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Standing On Eve Of Trial Granted
You have really got to work hard to achieve a result this bad. On the eve of trial in the WDTX, Judge Albright dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because the plaintiff had lost its patents via a turnover order after it was sanctioned in the EDTX and didn’t pay those sanctions, nor did it post a supersedeas bond while appealing them, thus making them vulnerable to the turnover order. (For clarification, the EDTX case being referenced is not the underlying sanctions order against this attorney I posted on a few weeks ago. Nor is it the one from the NDTX I also posted on recently, nor the one from D. Del. – both also against the same attorney. As I said, you have to work hard to get this result.
“Hot-Then-Cold Positions” – Are They A Good Thing?
The court noted that the defendant was able to secure and produce several employees of the third-party in an effort to distance itself from the EDTX, but when the court ordered venue discovery, defendant suddenly no longer controlled that third party or its employees, and refused to produce documents from them. “Defendant’s hot-then-cold positions are not well received by the Court,” Judge Gilstrap wrote, and ordered production, adding that “[t]he parties should be mindful that the disputes addressed herein are just the kind of things to be considered when the Court is later asked to determine if this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Can I Just Not Show Up For A Deposition?
Judge Gilstrap granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to produce the four witnesses identified for deposition. Noting that the plaintiffs had previously set the depositions three weeks after the notice, and the defendant did not call the court or move the court for protective order, the court ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs of $6,288.25 associated with the four depositions for which the defendant witnesses failed to appear.
Rulings On Postverdict Motions In Waco
Judge Albright denied the defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for new trial, and granted in part the plaintiff’s motion for supplemental damages, ongoing royalty and enhancement of postverdict damages. The 49 page opinion is a compendium of what did, didn’t, and should and shouldn’t have happened at trial.