The question was whether a party could require its opponent to travel overseas to defend two depositions.
Well, this is an interesting fact situation.
Once again, the argument on the motion to strike was really that the plaintiff’s infringement theory is fatally flawed. Is that enough?
The plaintiff sought leave to supplement two of its experts’ reports to account for a settlement after the expert disclosure deadline.
But was a motion required?
Does the order apply on a per case basis, or across all consolidated cases?
Motion practice on marking issues has always been a nightmare of double negatives for me. This order is a good example.
Judge Gilstrap supplemented his recent bifurcation order in this case.
This interesting order deals with a defendant’s amendment after a claim construction ruling.
The parties filed four motions for summary judgment in this case. One was granted – can you guess what the subject was?