Yes, it’s possible to have a case look as bad as the Texas’ stern. The plaintiff didn’t realize it had not served the defendant with process for seven months. Noting that there was no good cause shown for the lack of service, Judge Albright denied the motion to extend the time to serve, and dismissed the case.
The parties disagreed over whether a party had complied with a prior discovery ruling. Judge Albright concluded that the party had complied with court’s order by providing a witness prepared to testify about certain subjects, and denied the request for additional document production.
Judge Albright granted the defendants’ motion to sever and stay the proceedings against them, finding that the customer-suit exception applied – and the traditional stay factors were met as well.
The court declined to exclude the referenced products from the case on timeliness grounds. While the order does not provide detailed grounds for the court’s ruling, it appears that the plaintiff’s expert amended his report after receiving a “correlation chart” regarding products ordered produced by the court, and the court declined to exclude the products as not charted.
This 42 page order construes 12 claim terms, and contains useful insight into relevant standards as identified by the court.
Judge Albright granted defendant Intel motion to sever and transfer plaintiff’s claims against it to Oregon, and stay plaintiff’s claims against a codefendant based on the accused Intel products.
Judge Albright agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for infringement as to one of the two asserted patents.
Judge Albright denied the motion to compel witnesses for the full scope of each of the noticed FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition topics, but without prejudice to re-raising later. He also agreed that the defendant did not need to produce a deponent on four of the five topics (out of 80) it had objected to.
The defendant had moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction asserting defects in standing, for failure to state a claim, and for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Judge Albright denied the defendant’s motion to transfer, finding that its primary venue deponent’s lack of preparedness and failure to investigate undercut any credibility his testimony would otherwise have been entitled to.
