Several weeks ago I posted on Judge Albright’s grant of JMOL against plaintiff WSOU during a trial in October (he did the same thing against the same plaintiff in a trial in February). The written opinion on WSOU JMOL #2 came out yesterday and explains the Court’s rationale, which was based on a claim construction issue that arose during trial.
Probably in the eye of the beholder whether these rulings were a positive development, but they definitely decreased entropy in this case brought by Entropic Communications. Judge Payne (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity as to certain prior art defenses (which just FYI isn’t the same thing as a judgment of “validity”); (2) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the defendant’s Section 101 defense; and (3) denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity.
Everything is filed under seal, so all we know for certain is that (1) the plaintiff officer / counterclaim defendant didn’t show for the hearing on the motion for sanctions last week; and (2) Judge Payne has now required him to attend trial next month or face contempt or other sanctions. But I can add a little to the barebones order that issued Sunday – media reports that it’s unclear what the sanctions request was based on just means they didn’t know where to look. It appears it won’t be a dull day in Marshall.
Judge Payne denied the plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on the defendant’s nonpatent counterclaims and two of their affirmative defenses. Yes, this really is what the courthouse square in Marshall looks like.
Judge Payne concluded that Dell failed to show that this action could have been brought in NDCA, that NDCA was not “clearly more convenient”, that the motion was filed late, which has consequences, and gosh there was so much in that reply brief, wasn’t there?
Judge Payne denied the defendant’s motion to transfer to the Northern District of California, where the defendant was located (but not where the accused products were developed). The opinion addresses all the relevant factors, providing an up-to-date analysis in a case which had facts that were a little unusual.
Judge Godbey granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, noting that the asserted patents had expired, and that the plaintiff had twice failed to plead compliance with the marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), thereby precluding recovery of any pre-suit damages.
I posted yesterday on a judge’s order denying an unopposed motion for leave to seal a filing, noting the problems commonly encountered with such filings. A reader forwarded me the court’s standing order setting forth the summary judgment-like briefing requirements parties must comply with in order to file any sentence of a document under seal, and I thought it was worth some analysis, both of the order itself and of how to comply with its efficiently.