This order deals with a motion to intervene brought by a manufacturer when its customer is sued for infringement for operating the manufacturer’s products. It covers both types of intervention (of right and permissive) before deciding that intervention was warranted under both.
This afternoon I’m working on my first sur-sur-sur-reply, which per some rule someplace simply must be written outside with the aid of some Shiner Bock. But while enjoying the sunshine I also enjoyed this opinion which provides some additional clarification on the always interesting topic of when infringement contentions can be amended. And, more importantly, what conduct by a defendant – which was doing so well just yesterday – kneecapped its ability to oppose such a motion, and what conduct by parties does Judge Gilstrap just really not like? You’ll want to take notes here.
Plaintiffs sometimes designate infringement contentions as confidential under a protective order. In this case, the defendant asked the Court to either dedesignate the contentions or allow its outside counsel who are not counsel of record access to them.
What we referred to in my time in Waco as the “Baylor Rule” was to ask forgiveness, not permission (this might have had something to do with adult beverages in law school, so “Baylor” really should have a footnote appended in this context). But in case there was ever any doubt, that rule doesn’t apply in federal court, may God have mercy on your soul if you assumed it did, and here’s the citation.
I thought superdetailing the 1/200 CSM and LM for my Apollo 11 Saturn V was painstaking – until I read the attached 32 pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law on a defendant’s assertion that four claims were invalid as being directed toward ineligible subject matter. The Court concluded that one claim was invalid, but the other three were not. If you’re interested in detailed Section 101 analysis – this is the order you want. On the other hand, if you’re interested in scratchbuilt models of NASA hardware … I highly recommend you look into golf or fishing instead.
Several months ago I posted on Judge Gilstrap’s new standing order on the procedure for using juror questionnaires in his court, which requires coordinating the request with the deputy clerk in charge. In the attached case which is fast approaching trial, the parties submitted a proposed questionnaire, but didn’t follow the standing order. The Court denied the motion for use of the submitted questionnaire for failure to comply with the order.
I am asked on a regular basis whether a motion will be granted “automatically” if it is agreed or unopposed. The answer is a lawyerly “it depends”. While judges say that they are in the business of resolving disputes, not agreements, there are exceptions, and as here, they usually seem to deal with moving dates in a docket control order.
Last December General Order 18-10 made a number of changes to the EDTX local rules. A significant one was amendment of the patent local rules dealing with expert disclosures in connection with claim construction. A recent opinion applies that change and provides some new guidance on what the requirements mean.
One of the lasting effects of Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s lengthy stay at the White House in December of 1941 was President Roosevelt ordering a replica of his “map room” to be created in what had been the billiards room just steps from his elevator and his doctor’s office on the ground floor of the mansion. In memory of its use, for many years the last situation map prepared for President Roosevelt on April 3, 1945 hung over the mantel in this room. But FDR’s interest in precisely where his nation’s units were may pale in comparison to patent lawyers’ interest in reading the latest determinations of whether certain conduct gets a thumb tack for “exceptional” for purposes of an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
I posted recently on the history of the local model order focusing claims and a recent order illustrating its application. There is a new order out on a similar request to limit prior art references that’s worth reviewing.