Judge Payne’s order dealt with three experts. With respect to the first, his order dealt with two issues – whether an expert relied on technical information a party failed to disclose during fact discovery, and whether the expert improperly engaged in claim construction. The second was similar, raising a untimely disclosure issue, while the third raised questions of specificity and timing of alleged prior art references.
Judge Payne denied the motion, finding that there was “no doubt” that claim one of the asserted patent is directed to patent eligible subject matter, noting that the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly held” the claims directed to an improvement in computer or network functionality are patent eligible in this case, the patent claims were directed to a tangible improvement to computer network functionality through the use of a logical ring monitoring system.
Judge Payne denied the motion, finding that the NDCA was not clearly more convenient, with the plaintiff emphasizing both its presence in Texas and the defendant’s presence in the district.
Judge Payne denied two of the motions, and reserved the third for a forthcoming hearing, concluding that assessments as to the witness’ credibility and correctness were for the factfinder, not the court. As to the third motion, however, the court noted that there were substantial issues with the expert’s use of prior reports.
Plaintiffs amended their complaints in these cases to respond to the defendants’ claims that they had not pleaded infringement sufficiently. Judge Payne recommended the motions be denied, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded their claims of direct infringement, that “group pleading” was not prohibited where a corporate relationship was alleged, and that the claims of willful infringement were similarly sufficiently pleaded.
Noting that leave to amend was sought prior to the court order deadline, Judge Payne granted the motion, noting that complaints as to the propriety of the counterclaim or more appropriately addressed on a motion to dismiss.
There is a lot going on in this 51 page claim construction order resolving disputes across the 14 asserted patents. Some practitioners might find instructive the court’s conclusion that the preamble is limiting, but others might find more interesting the court’s conclusion that a term was indefinite because it was subjective, and the intrinsic record provided no objective standard by which a skilled artisan determine what is and is not a “natural sounding voice”.
After setting forth the relevant standards for such a request, Judge Payne denied the motion, finding that the relevant factors did not support the request.
Judge Payne granted the request, finding that the evidence was sufficient to suggest with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite contacts.
Plaintiff sought leave to conduct discovery into defendant Amazon’s position that it does not use the accused product at any of its facilities in the district, and this venue was not proper.
