Sticking with our trademark case brought by Gibson against Armadillo, now we have an emergency motion for leave to conduct discovery by the defendant.
What is sufficient justification for a request for additional discovery after the cutoff? Not what the plaintiff had here.
Scheduling conference minutes can provide a lot of insight into what the court thinks is a reasonable request.
Or, when is discovery into ability to satisfy a § 285 fee award appropriate?
This motion to compel sought documents regarding the value of a defendant’s share of the radio frequency spectrum.
On the other hand, motions to compel are the biscuits and gravy of the patent litigation world, as shown by this case.
This last of the three posts on Judge Albright’s new procedures covers the changes in OGP 3.1, which deal primarily with claim construction.
The question was whether the defendant had to produce a corporate rep on certain topics. These issues come up frequently, so the opinion is helpful.
It’s unclear whether the discovery might be part of a trade for some biscuits and gravy and a juice flight from Magnolia Table.
Does it matter if you have not pursued less intrusive means of discovery prior to deposing an apex executive?