Following a Markman hearing and supplemental briefing, the Court issued this opinion finding four of the asserted claims indefinite.
The issue here was whether the convenience factors favored a transfer, even in spite of the defendant’s delaying asserting the issue until the court congestion factor weighed heavily against transfer.
Another well-worn standard, but a rather different set of facts on the important factor of diligence this time.
Reading Markman rulings sometimes reminds me of the Curies going through mountains of pitchblende to find a little radium. In this case, the valuable part for most readers is the Court’s decision finding two claims indefinite.
This was a motion to dismiss for unenforceability and lack of standing, so if the effect of assignments are your thing, this is your lucky day.
An issue that sometimes comes up in negotiating protective orders is whether an acquisition bar should be included, i.e. a prohibition of counsel who see confidential documents from prosecuting patents in a certain field. In this case the magistrate judge declined to adopt the proposed acquisition bar, and the defendant appealed that decision to the district judge.
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.
I posted recently on the postverdict rulings in the Tinnus case, and thought readers might be interested in the restated final judgment and permanent injunction, which provides the specific amount of attorneys fees.
I have posted many times on the Tinnus v. Telebrands litigation, which involves water balloon patents. Another order is now out, this time involving postverdict motions including recovery of enhanced damages and attorneys fees for “exceptional” case status, as well as and entry of a permanent injunction. It is one readers will want to study, as it contains some actions that are extraordinary – even by patent litigation standards. When a court’s order uses the term “flagrantly” multiple times, you know things are about to get very interesting. There is much to be learned here, so let’s begin …
I’m posting a few pictures from our trip to the Capitol with the local Chamber of Commerce (and our two youngest boys, who served as House pages) last week as they seem appropriate for a verdict from a patent case involving oil field technology. The verdict came from Texarkana last week, where a jury in Judge Schroeder’s court rendered a defense verdict on infringement. Invalidity wasn’t submitted.