You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need.
Jury finds patent infringed.
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.