Probably in the eye of the beholder whether these rulings were a positive development, but they definitely decreased entropy in this case brought by Entropic Communications. Judge Payne (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity as to certain prior art defenses (which just FYI isn’t the same thing as a judgment of “validity”); (2) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the defendant’s Section 101 defense; and (3) denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity.
Everything is filed under seal, so all we know for certain is that (1) the plaintiff officer / counterclaim defendant didn’t show for the hearing on the motion for sanctions last week; and (2) Judge Payne has now required him to attend trial next month or face contempt or other sanctions. But I can add a little to the barebones order that issued Sunday – media reports that it’s unclear what the sanctions request was based on just means they didn’t know where to look. It appears it won’t be a dull day in Marshall.
Judge Payne denied the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on the defendant’s nonpatent counterclaims and two of their affirmative defenses. Yes, this really is what the courthouse square in Marshall looks like.
Judge Payne concluded that Dell failed to show that this action could have been brought in NDCA, that NDCA was not “clearly more convenient”, that the motion was filed late, which has consequences, and gosh there was so much in that reply brief, wasn’t there?
Judge Payne denied the defendant’s motion to transfer to the Northern District of California, where the defendant was located (but not where the accused products were developed). The opinion addresses all the relevant factors, providing an up-to-date analysis in a case which had facts that were a little unusual.
Judge Payne recommended denying defendant Samsung’s four motions for summary judgment (three noninfringement and one damages) finding that there were genuine issues/disputes of material fact.
Sometimes when a party’s name changes, it seeks leave to amend the case caption so that the new name is reflected. This order denies such a motion, but explains why.
Judge Payne denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not sufficiently diligent with respect to the proposed amended infringement contentions adding additional accused products, and that addition at this stage would be highly prejudicial to defendants. But in a footnote it stated that “[r]ecognizing the potential importance of the amendment, the Court does not foreclose the ability of Finesse to pursue the additional products in a separate proceeding.”
The court denied the motion asserting lack of standing, finding that the allegations could be cured by filing an amended complaint. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the claim of pre-suit willfulness, finding it plausibly alleged at this stage of the litigation.
Following his recent order deeming established the sales figures in certain third-party reports, the only issue remaining was whether the plaintiff’s reasonable royalty rates included a proper apportionment analysis. Judge Payne concluded that they did.