So how’d you spend your weekend? I made (Brennan’s) Eggs Benedict and mimosas for my wife for Mother’s Day and built a 3/10″ command module. Oh, and read an interesting case on amending contentions under 35 U.S.C. § 295.
When a claim chart can apply to multiple accused products is an issue that comes up occasionally in patent litigation. This order provides an exemplar of how this issue is sometimes addressed.
For more on tulip poplars, click here. For more on motions to strike infringement contentions, keep reading.
Mr. Sam’s famous quote about why he changed his mind about LBJ being JFK’s running mate in 1960 also applies to amending patent contentions. You, too, can be a wiser patent practitioner after reading this order by Judge Albright.
Well, actually there often is. But whether that is the case depends on the facts of the case – and where you are.
Another well-worn standard, but a rather different set of facts on the important factor of diligence this time.
This afternoon I’m working on my first sur-sur-sur-reply, which per some rule someplace simply must be written outside with the aid of some Shiner Bock. But while enjoying the sunshine I also enjoyed this opinion which provides some additional clarification on the always interesting topic of when infringement contentions can be amended. And, more importantly, what conduct by a defendant – which was doing so well just yesterday – kneecapped its ability to oppose such a motion, and what conduct by parties does Judge Gilstrap just really not like? You’ll want to take notes here.
So shoot me if I’m off topic. My engineering student (who is still looking for an internship in electrical and computer engineering this summer, if you know anyone) comes home from Baylor Thursday night for Easter and cooks a prototype of his new “folded steak” recipe (he cut an 8 oz. filet partway multiple times, unfolds it to cook, then folds it again over some kind of herbed butter because no one needs to live forever). It worked so well he made eight more for the whole family Saturday night.
You know what ALSO worked well recently? The plaintiff’s motion to amend its infringement contentions which not only worked – the defendant’s related motion for sanctions was denied as well. (The cross motion for sanctions for filing a motion for sanctions was also denied because of course).
Orders passing on motions to amend infringement or invalidity contentions are always of interest, since you want to know which fact situations will and won’t permit contentions to be changed. In a recent case the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its contentions to add additional allegedly infringing products and doctrine of equivalents (DOE) arguments based on deposition testimony obtained in the case.