Okay, the second order wasn’t venue, but what’s a 12(b) basis between friends, right? Everybody likes inequitable conduct, right?
The court granted the motion, with leave for the defendant to amend its answer “again.”
The issue in this SDTX case was whether the court would dismiss the IC and induced infringement claims as not plausible.
The court denied the motion, finding that the evidence was relevant to other claims.
I posted on this a couple of days ago, but a new order provides guidance on how this issue can be resolved. (With a helpful Easter egg).
Judge Albright issued findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the inequitable conduct issue in a case tried earlier this year. The actual result is in a different order, also attached
Judge Gilstrap concluded that prosecution laches required vacating a $308 million jury award. (I had no idea a weekend trip to see submarines in Charleston would be so helpful).
The issue revolved around documents relevant to the inequitable conduct claims in this patent case.
Still in trial. Different one. JMOL rulings still exciting, especially one with a froth of inequitable conduct.
There are not a lot of these since not many cases have gotten to this stage. So these numerous new ones are important.