Bad cases may make bad law on occasion, but different facts make different outcomes all the time.
Yeah, I didn’t think so. But the opinion is still a useful guide to infringement and how genuine issues of material fact work.
It is unclear whether the game was inspired by the recurring dispute as over parties’ “right of control” over documents held by third parties. But this opinion is a lot more fun if you assume it is.
There’s no tool in my woodshop that I think is as cool as my marking gauge. As a result, every time I see a dispute under § 287, I have a completely different mental image from what you’d expect. Like on this MSJ on damages on unmarked products.
“Alex, what’s the threshold for avoiding Section 285 liability?”
FRCP 12(b)(6) motions are sometimes joined with 12(e) requests for more information. This order granted or denied the former – no repleading required.
Why would ANYONE want to go to Sherman when they can go to Marshall and see this beautiful courtroom? Words fail me. They failed the Court too.
Defendants filed a motion to compel seeking damages info in this case dealing with a professional wrestler and an online combat game. Which makes this post both adorable and informative.
Two motions – one to continue case deadlines, and the second requiring production of witnesses overseas.
Relevance and proportionality play a major role in the Court’s decision, as you might guess.