No, This is A Different Case Dismissed For Failure to Respond, But I Can See Why You Thought That

Yesterday I posted on a WDTX order dismissing a patent case brought by the Ramey firm on September 21 with prejudice for failure to respond as ordered by the court after an initial dismissal.  This is a completely different order – it is a WDTX order dismissing a patent case on brought by the Ramey firm on September 22 with prejudice for failure to respond as ordered by the court after an initial dismissal. 

“The standard for excusable neglect is an equitable one. And the equities do not lie with Plaintiff.”

Judge Pitman declined to set aside his dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent infringement case with prejudice following the plaintiff’s failure to amend in response to a dismissal for failure to adequately plead claims of direct infringement.  But this description of this order is like calling County Line barbecue “something to eat”. So let’s dig in.

Motions to Dismiss Granted w/Leave to Replead; Motion to Transfer Denied

In this pair of opinions addressing motions by two defendants, Judge Gilstrap granted the motions to dismiss, but with leave to replead, denied a motion seeking to find the defendant’s US subsidiary a necessary party, and denied the motion to transfer.

Motions to Dismiss Infringement Claims Granted in Part – Primer on Pleadings Included at No Charge

Senior Judge Ezra granted in part the defendants’ motions, which were almost identical.  He found the direct infringement allegations sufficient, and the induced infringement allegations sufficient as well, although only as to certain of the patents – and provided an analysis of Eastern and Western District of Texas caselaw on the subject of what is required to sufficiently allege induced infringement. The court also granted the motion as to pre-suit contributory and willful infringement, but denied it as to post –suit claims, again setting forth in detail what is required to plead these claims.  Everything it granted it also gave leave to amend on.

101 Motion Denied

Judge Payne denied the defendant’s motion for partial dismissal asserting that three of the four patents in suit were directed to ineligible subject matter, holding that at the motion to dismiss phase, and in the absence of claim construction, the court could not agree with the defendant position without having first examined what a person in ordinary skill of the art would interpret the terms to mean.

Motion To Dismiss Waco Division Patent Infringement Claims Under Section 101 Granted

allocation” in order to keep plaintiffs from filing in single-judge divisions.  The random assignment of all civil cases across the Northern District “would present logistical challenges” Judge Godbey continued, because of the huge geographic size of the district, which encompasses more than 96,000 square miles.  Any reconsideration of case allocation must also consider the “convenience of the jurors, witnesses, parties and attorneys,” the travel burden on court personnel and “the desire of communities to have local judges.”

Apparently undeterred by said considerations, the chief judges of the smaller Western District of Texas (only 93,000 square miles) have assigned most of its judges south of Dallas and east of Houston a 1/12 interest, more or less, in the Waco patent docket, which meant that this Waco Division case was assigned to Judge Xavier Rodriguez of San Antonio, who last week granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims as unpatentable subject matter.