The question was whether the defendant had to produce a corporate rep on certain topics. These issues come up frequently, so the opinion is helpful.
What happens when a Section 101 issue meets the Twiqbal standard?
A Sherman jury in Judge Mazzant’s court found for the defendant in a patent case last week.
You can’t make this stuff up. You just can’t.
Same standard. Different fact situation. Same outcome, but with a detailed procedural analysis riding shotgun.
The court previously found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded an economic injury in fact. Defendant asked that the court certify that question for appeal. Wait, what?
Which is best explained by a brief detour into White House history (as this is a federal case now).
This opinion is a good example of application of the “clearly more convenient” standard in practice.
The first EDTX jury trial in the COVID- 19 era in Judge Mazzant’s court shows how the challenges are being met.
Based on this week’s trial in Sherman, we finally have an answer.