While this is a well-trodden area of the law, it’s always good to keep an eye on the standards to see if anyone’s changed their practices.
The pipes are blowing from Scotland, apparently, as this order from Judge Gilstrap accepted the terms in the parties’ agreed joint motion for limited venue discovery.
Last Thursday I posted on Judge Gilstrap’s order denying separate trials by intervening manufacturer in this case, noting that absent agreement by the defendants to waive their right under the AIA to separate trials, the case would have to proceed one defendant at a time. Then the other shoe dropped.
The EDTX meet and confer requirements before filing a motion are pretty well established, but what if there’s no one on the other side?
Following a hearing, the Court entered this order allowing a party to add a new defendant in a patent after the deadline, and deeming them already served.
I posted a few days ago about a discovery dispute where the Court resolved part and carried part pending a hearing. As expected, the parties resolved the disputes – this sets out what they agreed on.
For right at 20 years, patent practitioners nationwide have been used to providing infringement and invalidity contentions. Now in what may be a nationwide first, the EDTX is rolling out a third set of contentions – subject matter eligibility.
In this interesting case, an intervenor asked the Court to sever the plaintiff’s claims asserted against its customers in a group of consolidated cases and stay the remainder.
Okay, the amount is probably the most interesting thing about this order granting judgment based on a FRCP 68 offer, but it’s still a good reference for how FRCP 68 offers of judgment work.
Venue motions are usually filed before the scheduling conference so there’s no mechanism for conducting discovery on them. This order indicates what an appropriate schedule might look like.