Last week a Marshall jury found by clear and convincing evidence that, from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, the asserted claims only involved activities that were well-understood, routine, and
conventional as of the relevant date. But why were they asked this?
Judge Albright recently issued an amended claim construction order that resolved a dispute between the parties regarding whether the plaintiff’s infringement contentions were consistent with the Court’s constructions.
Judge Payne saw no factual dispute after the claims were construed.
In Waco for a hearing this morning, but it’s a Marshall case that’s caught my attention. Did you know there’s a trolley here now?
I recently posted that Judge Albright granted Apple’s alternative request for a transfer to WDTX-Austin after denying its request to NDCA. Apple has mandamused that agreed transfer now, but says it’s really Judge Gilstrap’s fault.
You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need.
Just in time to be able to skip tomorrow’s scheduling conference…
Well obviously if you take the route my grandparents did from Waco to Marshall on their honeymoon in 1929 it’s clearly not more convenient – but I doubt that was Judge Albright’s analysis
No, not the traffic. In the course of explaining why the last post should be v.4, I pulled some statistics quantifying the trend of cases filed in Waco being transferred to Austin.
Chip & Joanna may be opening a hotel in downtown Waco, but the parties
