U.S. District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle of Tyler held unlawful seven regulations implemented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its related federal agencies under the “No Surprises Act” that the plaintiff medical providers argued were being used to delay medical billing payment, increase the cost of billing and ultimately compensate providers at below-market rates.
Judge Payne granted the motion, finding that the defendant had long been on notice that the plaintiff contended that the asserted patents claimed priority to the date of the provisional applications, and that the defendant failed to present any evidence to establish a genuine dispute of material fact.
I had a great time at the recent planning meeting for the upcoming EDTX bench/bar conference in October. Pretrial rulings in this case were the subject of some gossip among the participants, so I went back and studied those I had not posted on previously, including SJ, experts, and a “novel” standing/subject matter jurisdiction argument. (And “novel” not in a good way).
Not as exciting as seeing Tiger 131 in the flesh at “Tankfest” in Bovington last month was Judge Payne’s denial of all three motions for summary judgment filed by the parties in this case. They consisted of a motion for partial summary judgment of noninfringement, a motion for summary judgment of no pre-suit damages, and a motion by the plaintiff for partial summary judgment that the defendant practiced certain limitations of the patents.
The history of this case goes back several years, but today’s order was the most important of them all. After hearing further argument on Defendant Apple’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, Judge Albright determined that his prior order denying Apple’s motion should be vacated. Accordingly, he granted Apple’s motion, and cancelled jury selection and trial, currently set for July 10, 2023.
This is a gray- goods trademark infringement case. The court recommended denying the defendants motion for summary judgment, and granted the plaintiffs in part.
Judge Albright issued a set of rulings in chart form from the pretrial conference held last week, including rulings on motions for summary judgment, expert testimony, and motions in limine. Of note is the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to priority date, finding that it was estopped from raising the issue based on its stipulation filed in the IPR proceedings.
Like my scratchbuilt 1/700 FDR, circa 1945, this case is beginning to take shape. Judge Hanen granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims of both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of Claim 4 of the asserted patent after what appears to have been a fairly consequential claim construction ruling. He might could have granted more if he’d had access to full-res scans of the original Newport News builder’s plans. But I’m just speculating.
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.