Order Focusing Claims

This order is notable because it was hotly disputed whether the court should enter it. (Also, it’s in 14 point for some reason).
This order is notable because it was hotly disputed whether the court should enter it. (Also, it’s in 14 point for some reason).
Apple paid VirnetX $454 million, but by this motion asked for part of it back.
They narrow claims in Waco too.
But there’s a catch.
You may have inventorship boilerplate, but how often do you get a full analysis of a spoliation claim based on email deletion?
It’s a stipulation on representative products, but still.
I posted recently on the history of the local model order focusing claims and a recent order illustrating its application. There is a new order out on a similar request to limit prior art references that’s worth reviewing.
A number of years ago, the judges in the EDTX came up with a model order limiting the number of claims and prior art references as a case goes along. I wanted to go over how that form came about, how it is used, and a recent example where the court resolved disputes over it.
More and more recent patent cases involve patents a party declares are essential to practice a standard. As was recently the situation in a case in Tyler, sometimes a party asks a jury to determine whether a party holding standard-essential patents complied with its obligations in its negotiations. In this case, the plaintiff asked the Court to declare that it had not breached its obligation to offer a license on FRAND, i.e. fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, terms. In other words, was its offer FRAND?
These findings and conclusions resolve the nonjury issues remaining after a recent jury trial in a patent case.