Think we’re going to need that Halo for this one.
Defendants argued that the Plaintiff’s patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that it failed to state a claim regarding its non-patent claims.
Forgetting to answer after a motion to dismiss is denied is not good. But it may not be fatal, as this case shows.
Kind of a two-fer here as far as bases for motions to dismiss. Well, really a three-fer if you want to get technical.
FRCP 12(b)(6) motions are sometimes joined with 12(e) requests for more information. This order granted or denied the former – no repleading required.
This order resolved the dispute over the applicability of the first to file rule to a case where there was an issue regarding personal jurisdiction.
This order sets the scope of a court’s examination of whether an offer complied with FRAND obligations
Often an agreement is made to swap out related defendants in a case. This somewhat less exciting practice usually contains certain provisions such as those set out in this order.
This was a motion to dismiss for unenforceability and lack of standing, so if the effect of assignments are your thing, this is your lucky day.
Following a hearing, the Court entered this order allowing a party to add a new defendant in a patent after the deadline, and deeming them already served.