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.

Almost Always Not Indefinite

I have to admit, I review claim construction orders not so much for the soap opera of what is and isn’t given plain and ordinary meaning, but for when judges believe that a term is or isn’t indefinite. The defendant asserted that 18 of the 19 terms were indefinite (“processes” it contended was plain & ordinary, and the parties reached agreement on seven other terms). Defendant offered no constructions for any disputed terms. Judge Gilliland reviewed indefiniteness claims over and over in this order, but found the standard met only once.