Motion for Stay Pending TTAB Proceeding Denied
Yes, TTAB. Judge Jordan denied the defendant’s motion to stay proceedings in this trademark infringement case pending the resolution of related cancellation actions.
Yes, TTAB. Judge Jordan denied the defendant’s motion to stay proceedings in this trademark infringement case pending the resolution of related cancellation actions.
Yes, it’s possible to have a case look as bad as the Texas’ stern. The plaintiff didn’t realize it had not served the defendant with process for seven months. Noting that there was no good cause shown for the lack of service, Judge Albright denied the motion to extend the time to serve, and dismissed the case.
The NDTX (which does not currently have a 109 year old battleship in drydock to have its blister tanks tweaked) granted a motion by the defendants to stay discovery in the case briefly while the court considers their motions to dismiss.
Judge Rosenthal denied the request to stay her grant of the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, but granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s copyright claims for lack of standing, as well as other claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. None of which is as interesting as the day we spent Sunday (near Houston) touring the 109 year old battleship Texas, currently in drydock to have her hull blisters nipped and tucked.
In a situation with all the hallmarks of defendants attempting to avoid service, Judge Sean Jordan granted a motion for alternative service.
Judge Hanen denied the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify a defense expert due to her prior work testing products which included the testing of products by the plaintiff.
The parties disagreed over whether a party had complied with a prior discovery ruling. Judge Albright concluded that the party had complied with court’s order by providing a witness prepared to testify about certain subjects, and denied the request for additional document production.
Judge Horan granted the motion to exclude some of the defendant’s expert’s opinions, and part of the defendant motion to exclude portions of the plaintiff’s experts’ testimony.
Judge Albright granted the defendants’ motion to sever and stay the proceedings against them, finding that the customer-suit exception applied – and the traditional stay factors were met as well.
Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff’s opposition to a motion to stay was not objectively unreasonable, and that the petitions it filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and before the PTAB were not frivolous or filed in bad faith.