Prior to holding a hearing on seventeen dispositive motions and 62 disputed limine motions, the Court issued this order resolving seven of the motions, all addressed to expert testimony.
This is an interesting opinion which deals with how a patent defendant’s counterclaims of infringement against a plaintiff are fitted into the existing case.
This order contains various rulings following a show cause hearing in a patent case, including the requirement that future motions by a party in that case must be signed by their local counsel.
Does the filing of a motion to dismiss extend the defendant’s time to answer the rest of the complaint? Inquiring minds wanted to know, and this opinion from Judge Gilstrap aligns him with the majority rule on the question.
It’s still almost as common as not for parties to ask the Court to redact confidential business information after the fact rather than at the time of the hearing or trial, despite a standing order in some EDTX courts requiring the latter. This is the latest order addressing that issue.
Ever just need a little extra room to get the job done? Well, it turns out there’s a right and a wrong way to ask a court for it.
This order was just issued in a case that is fast approaching trial. In it, Judge Gilstrap granted two Section 101 motions with respect to numerous claims of three of the four patents asserted in the case, but denied it as to five claims across two of the patents, and provided additional instructions regarding how the remaining claims would be handled.
An issue that sometimes comes up in negotiating protective orders is whether an acquisition bar should be included, i.e. a prohibition of counsel who see confidential documents from prosecuting patents in a certain field. In this case the magistrate judge declined to adopt the proposed acquisition bar, and the defendant appealed that decision to the district judge.
We have another set of JMOL rulings as to motions filed by a losing defendant, which, on the bright side maintained its streak.
Motions to transfer venue asserting inconvenience are less common recently, but this case provides a solid workout for the traditional factors, and indicates which continue to have significance when Section 1404 is asserted, particularly in a competitor case.