Like the expert orders, the USAA case required several pretrial rulings on dispositive issues.
The plaintiff sought to compel a slide deck produced by the defendant’s counsel, then clawed back.
It took five orders to sort out the objections to experts in this case. (More may have fallen behind the refrigerator and I’m not getting them out if they did – three is plenty).
The issue was whether the plaintiff would be required to supplement its infringement contentions.
Following remand, Judge Gilstrap recalculated the enhanced damages award.
But not the direction you’re thinking.
Plaintiff asked court to order the defendant to confirm that it has committed to accept the plaintiffs offer if that offer is found to be FRAND.
I am working with Peter Menell, Allison Schmitt and Roman Swoopes on a panel presentation as part of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology’s new “IP+Tech month” program – a year in review program with panels presenting on over 30 IP & tech topics during May.
BCLT reports that “[t]hese are not your typical CLE courses. They are highly-focused sessions that are curated through Berkeley Law. Our instructors and faculty are the cornerstone of this program and, with over 60 tech and IP-focused instructors, that’s a lot of expertise.”
On Monday we’ll be presenting on the subject of Patent Case Management, with yours truly herding the Texas-specific developments while Allison and Roman cover Delaware and California, respectively. After that Professor Menell will join us for a moderated roundtable on the topic.
So we have something other than a folder of cases for attendees, I took the Texas-specific developments and put them into a separate document with the relevant narrative enhanced with photos and watercolors of Texas courthouses so it looks nice. It’s attached below. Readers will recognize it as a subset of some of the more important cases and developments in Texas’ patent courts over the past year. I had initially intended it to be more comprehensive, but in the end decided to just mirror what I plan on talking about as part of the panel.
This week was our first video blog – but the video isn’t up yet. In it, the EDTX provides a side-by-side comparison of motions to amend contentions. Judge Gilstrap also provides a wonderful example of what it takes to win a 12(c) motion and strike down a patent under 101 – compare to Judge Albright’s “uphill scrabble” to win a Rule 12 motion. Finally, Judge Albright gives updated guidance on alternative service and about his model protective order.
Judge Gilstrap denied the motion without prejudice, finding that claim construction could be of benefit in addressing the issues of eligibility of the asserted patents in the case.