Judge Payne concluded that the plaintiff had met its pleading burden.
Judge Payne recommended denial of the noninfringement MSJ, but that part of the motion directed at pre-suit damages be granted.
Well, you won’t be hearing that at AT&T Stadium anytime soon, but you will in Marshall as the Federal Circuit denied Micron’s request to stay the trial of Netlist’s claims against it, set to start later this month, based on proceedings at the PTAB. It wasn’t happy that the district court had not ruled on the stay motion, it was also not best pleased that Micron waited until three weeks before trial to seek review.
Hard facts may make bad law, but unusual facts make interesting opinions. That’s a reasonable take after reviewing Judge Payne’s report and recommendations to Judge Gilstrap that the defendant’s equitable defense of unclean hands be tried to the bench before allowing the plaintiff to proceed to a jury trial on the patent infringement claims – currently scheduled for January 19.
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.