This extremely complex opinion resolved numerous issues relating to whether there was a case or controversy between certain parties at the time a case was first filed and, as a result, concluded that the court did not possess declaratory jurisdiction over the asserted claims.
Plaintiff, who Judge Gilstrap had previously concluded “has urged and re-urged unsupported claims, objections, and arguments” asked for relief from the Court’s award of $784,529.16 in attorneys’ fees to Sprint and $489,710.00 in attorneys’fees to Verizon under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Judge Hughes found the party to be necessary, and joinder feasible.
The issue here was the addition of a party the plaintiff claimed it wasn’t on notice was the proper defendant.
The plaintiff didn’t provide a reasonable justification for its delay, but the rest of the factors came out in its favor.
While the amended complaint was timely, Judge Albright found that it still should not be permitted. (In the sidecar was a discovery dispute, which, unlike the photo was not a good boi).
This motion to dismiss raised issues regarding claim splitting and improper venue which were novel, and issues regarding indirect and willful infringement which were not.
The court granted the motion, with leave for the defendant to amend its answer “again.”
The issue here was a defendant’s motion for leave to amend its answer to assert a license defense.
The defendant asked Judge Gilstrap to strike certain allegations it contended were unnecessary and to order the plaintiff to provide a more definite statement.
