A Sherman jury in Judge Mazzant’s counter answered a 22 question verdict form Friday in this trademark-plus case before leaving for the holiday weekend.
First the ruling. Judge Mazzant precluded certain evidence and arguments related to certain third-party advertisements and sales.
Judge Jordan partially granted this partially agreed motion, which provides a checklist of thing to, um, not do.
Last Thursday was back in trial in Sherman to assist Becca Skupin of our firm’s Sherman office try a case before Judge Mazzant, who had appointed her to represent a pro se plaintiff. (By “assist” I mean sit there and do basically nothing but be proud of the fine job she was doing. Although I did help make sure the laptop was charging properly). The voir dire was particularly good – she got ten out of a panel of 35 excused for cause.
This was our third trial with Judge Mazzant in the past year and my seventh overall – the other four were patent cases with Judge Gilstrap in Marshall. Unlike the first two in Sherman – which were two-week trials – this one only took two days, and the jury returned a verdict midafternoon Friday.
Following a trial which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff on a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff sought fees and costs.
Our twins couldn’t escape Spider-Man. The defendant couldn’t escape state court in this unfair competition claim.
Judge Jordan previously struck the plaintiff’s notice of partial voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a) as improper, but denied this request for a broader dismissal.
The issue here is whether the customer defendant’s affirmative defenses would be dismissed with or without prejudice following settlement of the action against the manufacturer.
Some judges provide these because they believe it helps focus claim constructions hearings. Add one more to the list (at least partially).
Judge Mazzant resolved the disgorgement issues in this case and directed the parties to submit a final judgment.