Join us this upcoming Tuesday, March 28 at 3:00 p.m. Central, Texas time, for another B-CLE live webcast about what is going on in IP cases in Texas federal courts. Wayne Stacy and I will go over the key cases I have selected from the past month to discuss. In this episode, we discuss some recent evidence cases that we should all be watching, including cases on expert report limitations, contention interrogatories, deposition scheduling, and privilege waiver. We also discuss the most recent venue cases and how In re Planned Parenthood is impacting Texas venue decisions. Registration and attendance is free, and CLE credit is available, as always – sign up here.
In another order arising out of litigation involving the same parties, Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, and for new trial and/or remittitur.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s motion for new trial in this case in which the Marshall jury awarded the plaintiff a one-time lump sum of $4.3 million as a reasonable royalty on September 16, 2022.
My article on Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s new standing order on motions in limine was published on IAM last week – it’s accessible to subscribers here. Unlike most of my writing, which is perhaps more directed towards practitioners, it is focused on what clients might want to know about the order. The principal takeaway is that it ought to save clients money, and help inform them what sorts of issues and arguments are off the table in Judge Gilstrap’s court.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law, letting the jury’s award of $75,229 stand. In a separate order, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law, he found that the defendant had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence its inequitable conduct defense.
The court noted that the defendant was able to secure and produce several employees of the third-party in an effort to distance itself from the EDTX, but when the court ordered venue discovery, defendant suddenly no longer controlled that third party or its employees, and refused to produce documents from them. “Defendant’s hot-then-cold positions are not well received by the Court,” Judge Gilstrap wrote, and ordered production, adding that “[t]he parties should be mindful that the disputes addressed herein are just the kind of things to be considered when the Court is later asked to determine if this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Judge Gilstrap granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to produce the four witnesses identified for deposition. Noting that the plaintiffs had previously set the depositions three weeks after the notice, and the defendant did not call the court or move the court for protective order, the court ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs of $6,288.25 associated with the four depositions for which the defendant witnesses failed to appear.
Judge Gilstrap dismissed this copyright case brought by numerous plaintiffs against an individual defendant for failure to prosecute.
Judge Gilstrap denied the plaintiff’s motion seeking to compel the defendant to produce expert reports and deposition transcripts from prior lawsuits the defendant had filed asserting infringement. Of note, the court italicized the word “different” five times in comparing the prior cases to the case at bar.
Judge Gilstrap denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims of induced infringement, finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged knowledge, specific intent, and willful blindness.