Neither judge believed that the plaintiff showed good cause supporting a mandatory extension of the service deadline – but reserved judgment on whether a discretionary extension was warranted.
Around our house, T-Rex means the above logo on a t-shirt. Around the courthouse it means motions for summary judgment – but are they more like a T-Rex’s jaws, or its hands?
This was a motion to dismiss for unenforceability and lack of standing, so if the effect of assignments are your thing, this is your lucky day.
The attached order from Judge Barker in Tyler provides some guidance on how not to extend dates under the specific provisions of a scheduling order in the Tyler Division.
With apologies to Elizabeth Barret Browning, let me count some of the very interesting ways this case tells us that infringement claims can be lost.
I challenge you to find a happier 16 year old than this one, who spent the first day of his summer vacation getting some stick time in a World War II trainer, as reported by the local paper. He was, in fact, smiling as broadly as I expect the defendants were when they got Judge Kernodle’s 122 page claim construction order in this 11 patent case raising over 30 terms, which addressed their indefiniteness arguments. They did pretty well.
Plaintiff moved to compel a narrative response to an interrogatory in a patent case pending before Judge Kernodle in Tyler. The subject matter was revenues and profits, and the order provides an example of when an answer can rely on FRCP 33(d), and when further information is required to be provided.
I posted recently on the postverdict rulings in the Tinnus case, and thought readers might be interested in the restated final judgment and permanent injunction, which provides the specific amount of attorneys fees.
I have posted many times on the Tinnus v. Telebrands litigation, which involves water balloon patents. Another order is now out, this time involving postverdict motions including recovery of enhanced damages and attorneys fees for “exceptional” case status, as well as and entry of a permanent injunction. It is one readers will want to study, as it contains some actions that are extraordinary – even by patent litigation standards. When a court’s order uses the term “flagrantly” multiple times, you know things are about to get very interesting. There is much to be learned here, so let’s begin …
This time the verdict is from Tyler, where a jury passed on a claim that had been stayed previously while proceedings played themselves out at the PTAB. The jury found the single asserted claim infringed, that the claim wasn’t shown by clear and convincing evidence to be invalid, and assessed damages of $1.5 million. I have attached the verdict form and some other tidbits I thought might be of interest on the stay issue.