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.