The Court denied the parties’ joint and unopposed motions in
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court found the asserted claims invalid and not infringed yesterday evening. Spectators found the new courtroom benches to have excellent lumbar support.
Orders on Rule 12(b)(5) motions are not common, which makes this one useful to see when challenged service on a foreign corp was held
Ever wonder how venue works in qui tam cases? This order in an EDTX case provides a good overview of the standards.
This order addresses the venue analysis as it applies to servers in light of Judge Reyna’s dissent in In re Google, and as such, is worth studying.
Sometimes a court issues orders sua sponte either asking for information relevant to pending motions, or directing the parties to file notices or reports to provide information for future action. Here are some examples of what litigants might see in these orders, and why.
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.