One out of three’s not … well, maybe it is. And check out the forum selection comment.
Most JMOLs get denied. That was certainly the case here following a damages retrial.
Following remand, Judge Gilstrap recalculated the enhanced damages award.
Judge Gilstrap ruled on the plaintiff’s request for a finding of exceptional case and attorneys fees.
The judgment included a single paragraph denying enhancement despite the willfulness finding.
Not in this case, which discusses some time management issues at trial.
You only get pretrial rulings when a case makes it to pretrial, which makes this set of limine, expert and SJ rulings from Judge Albright especially significant.
See the difference a simple redaction makes, compared to the unredacted version a couple of days ago? Graceful and elegant, full of fees and fluffed damages, this is an order you’re really going to enjoy.
I have posted many times on the Tinnus v. Telebrands litigation, which involves water balloon patents. Another order is now out, this time involving postverdict motions including recovery of enhanced damages and attorneys fees for “exceptional” case status, as well as and entry of a permanent injunction. It is one readers will want to study, as it contains some actions that are extraordinary – even by patent litigation standards. When a court’s order uses the term “flagrantly” multiple times, you know things are about to get very interesting. There is much to be learned here, so let’s begin …
These postverdict orders arise out of a case tried last fall, and resolved the parties’ disputes over whether the jury’s damages award should be enhanced, and an ongoing royalty established.