Motion to Transfer Patent Case Against Microsoft to WDWA Denied

Judge Albright denied the motion, noting that the fact that source code was stored in Washington state didn’t support a transfer when Microsoft was producing it for review in Washington D.C.. (Seriously, it’s in there). He also noted that not only are all the documents, software and code accessible anywhere, but the “extra security clearance” alleged to be needed to access it is possessed by employees in the WDTX.

Dismissal Before or After Deposition?

Judge Albright granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss their claims against a group of defendants. The court declined to enforce a purported agreement that the remaining defendants could depose one of the defendants to be dismissed before dismissal, finding that there was no plain legal prejudice arising from the dismissal. “The Objecting Defendants, with a little extra time and expense, can use a subpoena to obtain the desired deposition,” the Court noted.

Non-Standard Motions in Limine

Judge Albright’s adoption of Judge Gilstrap’s standard motions in limine means that there are only a handful are presented at each scheduling conference. In this case, plaintiff had three, and defendant had two. Three were granted – meaning approach the bench before going into the subject – one was denied with the party directed to simply object, and the fifth was denied with an instruction as to what the party could and could not say.

Motion For Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement Granted

This order follows up on Judge Albright’s ruling at final pretrial conference in this case striking portions of the plaintiff’s expert report on infringement for substituting new infringement theories, and accordingly dismissing the plaintiff’s case with prejudice.  In response to a motion for reconsideration, it vacates and supersedes the prior order.

No Sanctions for “Copy and Paste” Errors

Judge Albright adopted Judge Gilliland’s unobjected-to report and recommendation that Salesforce’s request for Rule 11 sanctions against WSOU be denied “[b]ecause Defendant waited to bring this Motion until years after Plaintiff filed the Original Complaint, until years after briefing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was complete, and until months after Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the current complaint”. That the conduct was only “copy-and-paste” errors was a separate grounds for denial.