It’s so rare to see something truly new, but this motion in proffer’s clothing counts. Plaintiff filed a “Proffer” requesting, um, that the court admit stuff and take judicial notice of other stuff. But not a motion at all, so, uh, no need for a certificate of conference. Not so fast, Judge Gilstrap held, and denied the motion, sorry “Proffer”.
The court concluded that the defendant had not met its burden to show that either of the officers (CEO and a VP) “regularly transact  business in person” in Texas as required by Rule 45.
Judge Gilstrap denied the defendant renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to FRCP 50(b), finding that substantial evidence exists supporting the jury’s verdict on each of the grounds raised, and that none of the grounds compel setting aside the jury’s verdict or granting a new trial.
Judge Gilstrap granted the motion, finding the case exceptional and awarding a quarter of the costs between the first and second trial.
A Marshall jury in Judge Gilstrap’s court returned a verdict Friday afternoon in favor of the plaintiff in Netlist’s case against Samsung. The jury found at least one of the claims in each of the asserted patents infringed, none of the 11 claims proven invalid by clear and convincing evidence, and that infringement of at least one of the asserted claims in each of the three patents/patent groups was willfully infringed. The jury set damages at $303.15 million.
The motion raised the government contractor defense, and claimed that the plaintiff had engaged in impermissible claim splitting. Judge Payne recommended that the motion be denied.
The parties agreed that supplemental damages and prejudgment interest was recoverable, but disagreed as to the amounts. Judge Gilstrap resolved the disputes as to both.
Judge Gilstrap denied the request for a permanent injunction following a jury verdict of infringement, but granted an ongoing royalty at the rate agreed to between the parties.
Congratulations are in order to EDTX Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who was the recipient of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association’s Outstanding Public Service Award at the NYIPA’s 101st Annual Judges Dinner in New York.
This is an MDL proceeding assigned to Judge Gilstrap. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking relief with respect to a declaratory judgment defendant’s claims – specifically that the first to file rule apply to the DJ actions filed in the NDTX. Judge Gilstrap agreed, and stayed the NDTX action.