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.
As I posted several months ago, and more recently in connection with a recent decision, last year’s EDTX rule changes included a new requirement regarding expert disclosure at the P.R. 4-3 stage. We now have a second opinion interpreting the new provision in light of a dispute that has arisen over it.
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.
The parties filed cross-motions for sanctions arising out of conduct in a deposition, resulting in an order from Judge Albright.
I don’t know what’s in the water in Marshall and Waco these days, but there are protective order issues popping up everywhere for some reason, including this recent one from Judge Albright’s court in Waco.
Judge Albright issued the attached order adopting the special master’s report & recommendation on claim constructions, with one exception.
Ever run into that situation where a motion to dismiss is followed by an amended complaint and you’re left scratching your head trying to figure out where that leaves you procedurally? Well wonder no more, because this recent opinion collects the cases and explains the pleadings version of rock, paper, scissors.
I’m over the river in Oklahoma today at the EDTX bench bar planning meeting, but that’s no excuse not to post on another detailed order from Franklin Avenue – Judge Albright’s third on patentable subject matter.
The substance of the motion deals with when a party’s prior contentions and expert reports dealing with the same patents should be produced, but the order comes with a tasty procedural holding dealing with discovery motion practice as well.
The issue on this motion was whether the plaintiff could go forward with claims of willful infringement. The holding granted the motion, but only on one side of the filing date.