Around our house, T-Rex means the above logo on a t-shirt. Around the courthouse it means motions for summary judgment – but are they more like a T-Rex’s jaws, or its hands?
Not too long ago I posted on Judge Albright’s denial of a summary judgment motion. He just ruled on the request to reconsider that decision, giving us insight into how he views motions to reconsider.
The Court overruled the Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report recommending that summary judgment of noninfringement be granted.
Nothing like a cigar, a fine whiskey, and a well-crafted order on a request for partial summary judgment on limitations and damages.
Today’s first Oyster (ruling) is on one of the defendants’ SJ motion on its license & release defense.
The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to the sole remaining claim in this case.
Prior to holding a hearing on seventeen dispositive motions and 62 disputed limine motions, the Court issued this order resolving seven of the motions, all addressed to expert testimony.
This is a sex discrimination case in which the magistrate judge recommended that summary judgment be granted in part – a recommendation that the district judge accepted.
The issue on this motion was whether the plaintiff could go forward with claims of willful infringement. The holding granted the motion, but only on one side of the filing date.
This order resolves a number of summary judgment motions on breach of contract claims arising out of an employment relationship. The facts are bespoke, so I won’t go through them, but the analysis may be of interest if you’re itching to have a court resolve contract issues.