Okay, this was technically not during yesterday’s scheduling conferences, but the courtroom was nearly as crowded. Some 39 lead cases involving 62 cases received Markman and trial settings at the bimonthly scheduling conferences yesterday. But attorneys were not required to appear wearing lights (which is a requirement for participating in the annual Christmas parade. At least if you want to win in your category).
A Marshall jury in Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s court found that defendant Samsung did not infringe the four asserted claims, but that Samsung had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that they were invalid.
There’s no question that my Lexington is going to have flight deck striping – but it’s still to early to determine exactly what it’s going to be. Similarly, Judge Gilstrap concluded that the request that he enter the court’s Model Patent Order at this time was premature, deciding that it would be better to wait till after the defendant serves its invalidity contentions with corresponding technical discovery.
Parking on the square in Marshall is almost becoming an issue as the number of patent cases being heard at scheduling conferences is continuing to increase.
The prevailing defendant in this copyright case sought an award of fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505. Judge Gilstrap’s opinion sorted through the claims and the parties’ alleged conduct in the case before finally determining the appropriateness of an award of fees, thus giving parties some guidance on when an award of fees in a copyright case is appropriate.
In this pair of opinions addressing motions by two defendants, Judge Gilstrap granted the motions to dismiss, but with leave to replead, denied a motion seeking to find the defendant’s US subsidiary a necessary party, and denied the motion to transfer.
The defendant asked the court to either continue the trial setting or in the alternative, to reorder trials. Judge Gilstrap denied the motion and explains how this all works. And I can add some observations here as well.
Judge Gilstrap recently amended his standing motions in limine in patent cases. As indicated in the attached there has been several changes, one of which I would consider substantive – or at least requiring a change in practice.
You can tell a lot about a docket by the scheduling conferences. Take this one from last Thursday.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant’s motion seeking to consolidate two cases against it by the same plaintiff for purpose of pretrial.
