To celebrate our three-peat as Marshall-Harrison County Literacy Council spelling bee champs this afternoon on behalf of the Marshall Chamber of Commerce, let’s look at an order involving a plaintiff whose name I can’t spell.
Following a Markman hearing and supplemental briefing, the Court issued this opinion finding four of the asserted claims indefinite.
Well, that was quick. The defendant’s motion to dismiss under section 101 was denied seven days before the response was due with a direction to refile after the Markman. (Apologies to Wacoans for the crude ALICO building).
It may lack the drama of the Packard sawmill burning down on Twin Peaks, but if an order applying settlement credits and awarding court costs doesn’t get your heart racing, why do you even have a bar card anyway?
This is a Fair Labor Standards Act case, in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant should have paid managers overtime compensation.
After reviewing the Defendant’s FRCP 59(e) motion, the Court agreed that its Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law should be amended, but that the change didn’t disturb the result of the final judgment.
In this procedurally complex case, the defendant asked for a stay pending two related cases, and got it as to one.
Expert witnesses deposed, after which they execute additional declarations. Can the declarations be stricken or the witnesses
A case involving suspension of a provider’s Medicare reimbursement payments generated three orders on motions to dismiss, to seal and for injunctive relief from the EDTX’ new judge in Beaumont.
Ever wonder how venue works in qui tam cases? This order in an EDTX case provides a good overview of the standards.