Declaratory Judgment Of Patent Unenforceability Granted After Five Years
The parties filed 11 motions for summary judgment – Judge Ellison granted the one holding the patents in suit unenforceable for inequitable conduct before the Patent Office.
The parties filed 11 motions for summary judgment – Judge Ellison granted the one holding the patents in suit unenforceable for inequitable conduct before the Patent Office.
Plaintiff alleged that Nickelback’s song Rockstar infringed a song he wrote. The court disagreed, finding that there was not a genuine dispute for trial as to copying.
This complex order addressed motions for complete and partial summary judgment, as well as a motion to partially stay the case and to strike portions of an expert’s opening report. The case was stayed as to all the asserted claims of two of the patents, the motion to strike portions of the expert report was granted, and the motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part.
Judge Rodriguez (shown cutting the ribbon on the new San Antonio federal courthouse last summer) found genuine disputes of material fact as to the trademark and unfair competition claims, but dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for false advertising, false designation of origin, violations of the ACPTA and unjust enrichment with prejudice.
Judge Albright agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for infringement as to one of the two asserted patents.
Judge Payne recommended denial of three summary judgment motions, two dealing with noninfringement, and one with invalidity, finding that genuine disputes of material fact remain for the jury to resolve.
Following a hearing last week, Judge Ellison granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant on its defense of fair use.
One of my favorite sayings is Gerry Spence’s to the effect that “when the horse dies, get off.” But in a lawsuit, it’s not always that simple. Judge Gilliland noted that the issue before him was how to dismiss the defendant from the case without prejudice , with prejudice, or by summary judgment of noninfringement.
Judge Crane determined that the defendants could amend their Answer, and were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s trademark dilution claims. He also held that one defendant was entitled to judgment on Plaintiff’s state law unfair competition claim, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment on some of Defendants’ defenses.
As always, there may not be sufficient context to fully appreciate the rulings, but they are still worth reviewing (and there are a lot).