Marshall Patent Scheduling Conferences – September 2023
Parking on the square in Marshall is almost becoming an issue as the number of patent cases being heard at scheduling conferences is continuing to increase.
Parking on the square in Marshall is almost becoming an issue as the number of patent cases being heard at scheduling conferences is continuing to increase.
Judge Payne denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not sufficiently diligent with respect to the proposed amended infringement contentions adding additional accused products, and that addition at this stage would be highly prejudicial to defendants. But in a footnote it stated that “[r]ecognizing the potential importance of the amendment, the Court does not foreclose the ability of Finesse to pursue the additional products in a separate proceeding.”
Judge Payne recommended denial of defendant Amazon’s motion to dismiss, finding that venue was proper based on the facts alleged for this stage of the lawsuit, noting that the defendant’s objections relied on disputed facts regarding the use of the accused products in the EDTX. The court also rejected the claim that a forum selection clause require the case to be brought in Washington, and that venue was “clearly more convenient” there.
The court denied the motion asserting lack of standing, finding that the allegations could be cured by filing an amended complaint. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the claim of pre-suit willfulness, finding it plausibly alleged at this stage of the litigation.
The prevailing defendant in this copyright case sought an award of fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505. Judge Gilstrap’s opinion sorted through the claims and the parties’ alleged conduct in the case before finally determining the appropriateness of an award of fees, thus giving parties some guidance on when an award of fees in a copyright case is appropriate.
In this pair of opinions addressing motions by two defendants, Judge Gilstrap granted the motions to dismiss, but with leave to replead, denied a motion seeking to find the defendant’s US subsidiary a necessary party, and denied the motion to transfer.
The defendant asked the court to either continue the trial setting or in the alternative, to reorder trials. Judge Gilstrap denied the motion and explains how this all works. And I can add some observations here as well.
Some things you expect to see. Others might be a bit of a surprise. This judgment might have one of those things for you.
Following his recent order deeming established the sales figures in certain third-party reports, the only issue remaining was whether the plaintiff’s reasonable royalty rates included a proper apportionment analysis. Judge Payne concluded that they did.
Judge Payne found a claim term indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis in the claim. “While definiteness does not require absolute certainty, it does require reasonable certainty around the boundaries of the term. The Court finds that one of skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine what is meant by the phrase “the definition of the plan.””