Prior to holding a hearing on seventeen dispositive motions and 62 disputed limine motions, the Court issued this order resolving seven of the motions, all addressed to expert testimony.
This is an interesting opinion which deals with how a patent defendant’s counterclaims of infringement against a plaintiff are fitted into the existing case.
This order contains various rulings following a show cause hearing in a patent case, including the requirement that future motions by a party in that case must be signed by their local counsel.
Does the filing of a motion to dismiss extend the defendant’s time to answer the rest of the complaint? Inquiring minds wanted to know, and this opinion from Judge Gilstrap aligns him with the majority rule on the question.
Ever just need a little extra room to get the job done? Well, it turns out there’s a right and a wrong way to ask a court for it.
This order was just issued in a case that is fast approaching trial. In it, Judge Gilstrap granted two Section 101 motions with respect to numerous claims of three of the four patents asserted in the case, but denied it as to five claims across two of the patents, and provided additional instructions regarding how the remaining claims would be handled.
We have another set of JMOL rulings as to motions filed by a losing defendant, which, on the bright side maintained its streak.
This protective order opinion addresses the question of disclosure of certain information to a specified in-house counsel. It provides one of the relatively rare examples of a court resolving protective order disputes in an opinion which explains why the requested language was or was not adopted. (With dreadnought-sized footnotes).
Plaintiff sought “targeted venue discovery” based on arguments made by the defendants at a recent hearing on the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of denial of their prior venue motion.
Of all the opinions Judge Hall authored while I clerked for him, Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993) seems to be the most-cited. While the case dealt with several issues, its central holding, that once the “substantial similarity” test is met, the “first-to-file” rule accords the first-filed court the responsibility to determine which case should proceed, was the part of the opinion cited again by Judge Gilstrap earlier this month in transferring a case.