Judge Payne denied the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient process, as well as the motion to transfer to the CDTX, with the defendant’s arguments from the former tripping up the latter.
Judge Payne recommended denial of three summary judgment motions, two dealing with noninfringement, and one with invalidity, finding that genuine disputes of material fact remain for the jury to resolve.
There were five motions to strike and one motion to supplement which raised interesting issues regarding damages opinions and supplementation of expert reports, among other things.
Judge Payne denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or in the alternative for a more definite statement, holding that the arguments required a particular claim construction that is not apparent from the pleadings record. He also denied the motion for Rule 11 sanctions, noting that it relied on the same claim construction arguments.
Just a reminder in this order that in the EDTX judges usually deny motions for a stay pending a determination of inter partes review until after the PTAB acts on the petition. See Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, 2015 WL 1069179, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11 2015) (“In this district, that is not just the majority rule; it is the universal practice.”).
Defendant sought stay as to two of the four patents in suit. Judge Payne denied the motion, noting that the grounds were not the usual ones.
Judge Payne granted the motion, and ordered that the individuals be screened off from certain communications with the plaintiffs.
The subject of the motion was patentable subject matter under section 101.
Plaintiff had asked to add products – the court found it hadn’t show diligence and the amendments would be highly prejudicial.
Judge Payne concluded that the claims failed both steps of the analysis.