Plaintiff sought “targeted venue discovery” based on arguments made by the defendants at a recent hearing on the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of denial of their prior venue motion.
As I posted several months ago, and more recently in connection with a recent decision, last year’s EDTX rule changes included a new requirement regarding expert disclosure at the P.R. 4-3 stage. We now have a second opinion interpreting the new provision in light of a dispute that has arisen over it.
Of all the opinions Judge Hall authored while I clerked for him, Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993) seems to be the most-cited. While the case dealt with several issues, its central holding, that once the “substantial similarity” test is met, the “first-to-file” rule accords the first-filed court the responsibility to determine which case should proceed, was the part of the opinion cited again by Judge Gilstrap earlier this month in transferring a case.
Michael Truncale was sworn in to start work as the newest EDTX judge yesterday in Beaumont. (You can tell because the door says “judge” and he’s holding what appears to be a stack of Bibles)
Pretrial conference orders are usually like watching a golf game. Everything’s normal and quiet, but then once in a while suddenly a kraken comes out of the pond and seizes one of the golfers. Most of the time reading pretrial conference orders are about as exciting as watching golf too – but I keep reading anyway to see if something like the scene in this commercial happens. This order is the result.
Ever run into that situation where a motion to dismiss is followed by an amended complaint and you’re left scratching your head trying to figure out where that leaves you procedurally? Well wonder no more, because this recent opinion collects the cases and explains the pleadings version of rock, paper, scissors.
The substance of the motion deals with when a party’s prior contentions and expert reports dealing with the same patents should be produced, but the order comes with a tasty procedural holding dealing with discovery motion practice as well.
The issue on this motion was whether the plaintiff could go forward with claims of willful infringement. The holding granted the motion, but only on one side of the filing date.
My wife and I organize our visits to New Orleans around food – specifically bread pudding. If time permits, we’ll hit Palace Cafe for white chocolate bread pudding, Commander’s Palace (where we were engaged, by the way) for the bread pudding souffle, and BonTon for, um, whiskey garnished with a little bread pudding. All good, but different. Motions are like that too. In the last month I’ve posted on Twiqbal decisions by Judges Payne, Mazzant and Albright, and a few weeks earlier, Judge Kernodle. Today I have the same analysis but with its own unique flavor (perhaps honey?) from Judge Gilstrap.
Plaintiff moved to compel a narrative response to an interrogatory in a patent case pending before Judge Kernodle in Tyler. The subject matter was revenues and profits, and the order provides an example of when an answer can rely on FRCP 33(d), and when further information is required to be provided.