The question was what was left after the plaintiff filed a covenant not to sue?
The issue here is whether the plaintiff had to name the defendant’s “rogue employees” and the companies they obtained information from.
Reading while in a moving car gives me a sick feeling. Reading between the lines of this order does the same thing.
Just another motion to dismiss in a copyright case.
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.
Lengthy opinion from Judge Albright granting these 12(c) motions asserting prosecution history estoppel.
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 sunny day I’m celebrating my tulip poplar’s budding out with these JMOL rulings (including lots of interesting fees discussion) following a jury verdict.